e&i 

.3 


$B    52    5ft^ 


CO 


o 


*«Ytr' 


THE    DEMOCRATIC    PARTY 


AND 


PHILIPPINE     INDEPENDENCE 


By 
MOORFIELD    STOREY 


MAY»    1913 


UNIVEHSITY 


THE    DEMOCRATIC    PARTY 


PHILIPPINE    INDEPENDENCE 


MOORFIELD    STOREY 


MAY,  1913 


"When  I  am  asked  if  such  and  such  a  nation  is  fit  to  be  free,  I 
ask  in  return.  Is  any  man  fit  to  be  a  despot?" — Lord  John  Russell. 


BOSTON 

PBESa  OF   GEO.   H.    ELLIS   CO. 

1913 


JJS^?/ 


.3 


THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  AND  PHILIPPINE 
INDEPENDENCE. 


What  will  the  Democratic  party  do  for  the  Philippine  Islands? 

This  is  one  of  the  questions  which  presses  for  immediate  consid- 
eration, and  which  should  be  dealt  with  now  while  the  party  is 
in  power  and  before  new  issues  arise  to  divert  public  attention 
and  divide  its  councils. 


THE  PARTY^S  PROMISES. 

The  promises  of  the  party  have  been  clear  and  explicit.  When 
the  treaty  with  Spain  was  ratified  by  which  the  United  States 
acquired  the  islands,  the  votes  of  the  Democratic  senators,  with- 
out which  the  treaty  would  have  been  rejected,  were  given  upon 
the  theory  that  the  treaty  would  end  the  rights  of  Spain  in  the 
islands,  and  that  we  should  give  them  their  independence. 

The  first  Democratic  National  Convention  after  the  treaty 
met  on  July  4,  1900,  and  its  declarations  were  positive.  These 
were  its  words: 

''We  declare  again  that  all  governments  instituted  among  men 
derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed;  that 
any  government  not  based  up6n  the  consent  of  the  governed  is 
a  tyranny,  and  that  to  inipose  upon  any  people  a  government 
of  force  is  to  substitute  the  methods  of  imperiahsm  for  those  of 
a  republic. 

"We  assert  that  no  nation  can  long  endure  half  republic  and 
half  empire,  and  we  warn  the  American  people  that  imperialism 
abroad  will  lead  quickly  and  inevitably  to  despotism  at  home. 

"We  condemn  and  denounce  the  Philippine  policy  of  the  pres- 
ent Administration. 

"The  Filipinos  cannot  be  citizens  without  endangering  our 
civilization;     they  cannot  be  subjects    without    imperiling  our 


284670 


form  of  government;  and  as  we  are  not  willing  to  surrender  our 
civilization  nor  to  convert  the  Republic  into  an  empire  we  favor 
an  immediate  declaration  of  the  nation's  purpose  to  give  the 
Filipinos,  first,  a  stable  form  of  government;  second,  indepen- 
dence, and  third,  protection  from  outside  interference,  such  as  has 
been  given  for  nearly  a  century  to  the  republics  of  Central  and 
South  America." 

The  next  National  Convention,  which  met  on  July  6th,  1904, 
used  these  words: 

"We  oppose,  as  fervently  as  did  George  Washington  himself, 
an  indefinite,  irresponsible,  discretionary,  and  vague  absolutism 
and  a  policy  of  colonial  exploitation,  no  matter  where  or  by  whom 
invoked  or  exercised.  We  believe,  with  Thomas  Jefferson  and 
John  Adams,  that  no  government  has  a  right  to  make  one  set  of 
laws  for  those  *at  home'  and  another  and  a  different  set  of  laws, 
absolute  in  their  character,  for  those  'in  the  colonies.'  All  men 
under  the  American  flag  are  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  in- 
stitutions whose  emblem  the  flag  is.  If  they  are  inherently  unfit 
for  those  institutions,  then  they  are  inherently  unfit  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  American  body  politic.  Wherever  there  may  exist 
a  people  incapable  of  being  governed  under  American  laws,  in 
consonance  with  the  American  Constitution,  the  territory  of  that 
people  ought  not  to  be  part  of  the  American  domain. 
.  "We  insist  that  we  ought  to  do  for  the  Filipinos  what  we  have 
done  already  for  the  Cubans,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  make  that 
promise  now  and  upon  suitable  guarantees  of  protection  to  citi- 
zens of  our  own  and  other  countries  resident  there  at  the  time  of 
our  withdrawal,  set  the  Filipino  people  upon  their  feet,  free  and 
independent  to  work  out  their  own  destiny." 

In  1908  the  National  Convention  repeated  its  declaration  in 
the  following  form: 

"We  condemn  the  experiment  in  imperialism  as  an  inexcusable 
blunder  which  has  involved  us  in  enormous  expenses,  brought 
us  weakness  instead  of  strength,  and  laid  our  nation  open  to  the 
charge  of  abandoning  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  self-government. 
We  favor  an  immediate  declaration  of  the  nation's  purpose  to 
recognize  the  independence  of  the  Philippine  Islands  as  soon  as 
a  stable  government  can  be  established,  such  independence  to  be 
guaranteed  by  us  as  we  guarantee  the  independence  of  Cuba, 
until  the  neutralization  of  the  islands  can  be  secured  by  treaty 
with  other  powers.  In  recognizing  the  independence  of  the 
Phihppines  our  Government  should  retain  such  land  as  may  be 
necessary  for  coaling  stations  and  naval  bases." 


Finally,  in  1912,  the  platform  on  which  President  Wilson  was 
nominated  and  elected  contained  this  language: 

''We  reaffirm  the  position  thrice  announced  by  the  Democracy 
in  national  convention  assembled  against  a  policy  of  imperialism 
and  colonial  exploitation  in  the  Philippines  or  elsewhere.  We 
condemn  the  experiment  in  imperialism  as  an  inexcusable  blunder, 
which  has  involved  us  in  enormous  expenses,  brought  us  weakness 
instead  of  strength,  and  laid  our  nation  open  to  the  charge  of 
abandonment  of  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  self-government. 
We  favor  an  immediate  declaration  of  the  nation's  purpose  to 
recognize  the  independence  of  the  Philippine  Islands  as  soon 
as  a  stable  government  can  be  established,  such  independence  to 
be  guaranteed  by  us  until  the  neutralization  of  the  islands  can  be 
secured  by  treaty  with  other  powers. 

"In  recognizing  the  independence  of  the  Philippines  our  Gov- 
ernment should  retain  such  land  as  may  be  necessary  for  coahng 
stations  and  naval  bases." 

Long  antecedent  to  these  declarations  is  the  immortal  Declara- 
tion drawn  by  Thomas  Jefferson,  the  founder  of  the  Democratic 
party, — the  Declaration  of  which  Americans  have  always  been 
proud,  and  which  has  been  read  annually  to  the  people  on  the 
Fourth  of  every  July  as  the  best  statement  of  the  fundamental 
principles  upon  which  our  political  structure  rests,  those  "self- 
evident  truths"  that  "all  men  are  created  equal"  and  that  "gov- 
ernments derive  their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  gov- 
erned." In  its  successive  platforms  the  Democratic  party  has 
planted  itself  firmly  upon  these  great  principles,  and  it  could  not 
have  done  otherwise  without  being  false  to  its  traditions. 

Upon  these  statements  of  policy  and  these  promises  the  Demo- 
cratic party  has  sought  the  support  of  the  voters,  and  it  has 
now  received  that  support  and  is  in  full  control  of  the  govern- 
ment. If  words  mean  anything,  it  has  promised  to  give  the 
Filipinos  their  independence,  and  no  man  can  trust  it  if  this 
promise  is  broken.  Why  should  any  Democrat  suggest  that  the 
policy  which  his  party  has  so  uniformly  and  so  repeatedly 
pledged  itself  to  adopt  be  now  abandoned,  and  the  Republican 
poHcy  which  it  has  "condemned  and  denounced,"  which  it  has 
characterized  as  "an  indefinite,  irresponsible,  discretionary 
and  vague  absolutism,"  which  it  has  called  "an  inexcusable  blun- 
der," be  now  adopted,  or  by  delay  continued  in  operation! 


THE  DEMAND  FOR  INVESTIGATION. 

Just  as  the  friends  of  protection,  defeated  at  the  polls,  fill  the 
newspapers  with  lamentations  and  prophecies  of  disaster,  repeating 
with  tireless  iteration  the  familiar  arguments  in  favor  of  their 
unjust  privileges  and  urging  that  an  investigation  by  a  tariff 
commission,  never  deemed  necessary  when-  the  tariff  was  to  be 
raised,  should  now  be  had  before  it  is  lowered, — so  all  the  oppo- 
nents of  Philippine  independence  with  like  prophecies  of  calamity 
ask  that  the  President  and  his  Cabinet  institute  an  inquiry  into 
the  condition  of  the  slands  before  taking  any  step  to  carry  into 
effect  the  policy  to  which  the  party  stands  pledged. 

In  each  case  the  motive  is  the  same.  It  is  the  old  policy  of 
delay  by  which  Fabius  conquered  Hannibal.  It  is  the  attempt 
to  postpone  action  on  any  ground  in  the  hope  that  meanwhile 
something  may  occur  to  divert  attention  or  to  discredit  and 
divide  the  party  in  power,  and  so  enable  our  opponents  to  re- 
cover the  control  of  the  government.  Delays  are  dangerous,  and 
therefore  they  urge  delay  and  are  fertile  in  suggesting  reasons 
for  it. 

But  what  a  confession  is  this  demand  for  an  investigation  of 
Philippine  conditions!  What  is  there  to  learn?  Has  not  the 
Commission  made  regular  reports?  Have  not  the  War  Depart- 
ment and  its  Insular  Bureau  told  us  all  that  there  was  to  know 
about  the  islands  and  their  people?  If  they  have,  investigation 
is  a  useless  waste  of  time.  If  they  have  not,  what  facts  have  they 
concealed?  What  truth  have  they  kept  back?  If  indeed  the 
American  people  are  ignorant  of  what  has  been  going  on  in  the 
islands,  that  fact  is  the  strongest  possible  argument  for  Philippine 
independence.  It  is  hard  enough  for  people  to  govern  them- 
selves with  personal  knowledge  of  their  own  affairs.  It  is  far 
more  difficult  for  one  people  to  govern  another,  even  if  it  has  the 
fullest  knowledge  of  all  that  concerns  the  subject  people.  It  is 
absolutely  impossible  for  one  people  to  govern  another  if  the 
governing  people  has  not  this  knowledge,  and,  if  after  governing 
the  Philippine  Islands  for  fifteen  years  we  have  now  to  make  an 
investigation  in  order  to  learn  what  has  been  done  there  and 
what  are  the  present  conditions,   we   have   never  had  the  in- 


formation  without  which  we  could  not  direct  the  affairs  of  the 
islanders. 

As  long  ago  as  April  21,  1904,  Mr.  Taft  said  to  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  in  New  York: 

"The  people  of  the  United  States  have  under  their  guidance 
and  control  in  the  Philippines  an  archipelago  of  3,000  islands, 
the  population  of  which  is  about  7,600,000  souls.  Of  these 
7,000,000  are  Christians,  and  600,000  are  Moros  or  other  pagan 
tribes.'' 

In  the  same  speech,  referring  to  a  petition  for  Philippine  inde- 
pendence signed  by  Cardinal  Farley,  more  than  fifty  bishops, 
more  than  sixty  judges,  Grover  Cleveland,  Charles  W.  Eliot, 
President  Schurman,  ex-Senator  Edmunds,  Andrew  Carnegie, 
Wayne  MacVeagh,  Charles  Francis  Adams,  and  thousands  of 
others  among  our  leading  men,  Mr.  Taft  said: 

"Why  should  the  good  people  who  signed  the  petition  inter- 
meddle with  something  the  effect  of  which  they  are  very  little  able 
to  understand?" 

He  did  not  seem  to  reahze  that,  if  the  very  best  Americans  could 
not  understand  what  we  were  doing  in  the  Philippine  Islands, 
it  was  idle  to  say  that  the  American  people  were  guiding  and 
controlling  them,  and  that  his  two  statements  meant  that  the 
guidance  of  the  Filipinos  by  the  American  people  was  the  merest 
farce. 

Now  nine  years  later  we  are  told  that  Congress  does  not  know 
enough  about  Philippine  conditions  to  legislate,  and  as  they  need 
a  tariff  commission  to  teach  them  how  to  reduce  the  tariff,  so 
they  need,  not  the  present  Phihppine  Commission,  but  a  new 
commission  to  tell  them  the  facts  and  give  them  advice  as  to 
what  they  should  do  for  the  islands.  I  say  again.  What  a  con- 
fession! 

This  at  least  is  true :  we  have  heard  all  that  can  be  said  in  favor 
of  retaining  the  islands.  Those  who  have  been  responsible  for 
their  administration  have  made  the  best  case  possible:  President 
McKinley,  President  Roosevelt,  and  President  Taft,  the  Commis- 
sioners and  other  American  officials  in  the  islands,  the  War  De- 
partment  and   its   Insular   Bureau,   the   Republican   leaders   in 


6 

Congress  and  out  who  have  favored  the  retention  of  the  islands, 
have  presented  year  after  year  all  the  arguments  which  they 
urge  now,  and  these  arguments  have  been  perfectly  familiar  to 
the  men  who  framed  and  the  conventions  which  adopted  the 
Democratic  platforms  that  have  been  quoted,  and  notwithstand- 
ing these  arguments  the  party  year  after  year  has  denounced 
the  policy  of  the  Republicans  and  pledged  itself  to  Phihppine 
independence. 

Now  that  the  case  is  won,  the  Democratic  party  cannot  afford 
to  stultify  itself  by  admitting  that  its  language  did  not  mean 
what  it  said,  that  its  oft-repeated  declarations  have  been  made 
ignorantly  or  recklessly,  and  now  adopt  as  its  own  the  policy 
which  it  has  always  condemned.  This  is  to  break  faith  with  the 
voters  who  have  believed  its  promises  and  placed  it  in  power 
because  they  believed.  We  have  a  right  to  say  that  the  case  has 
been  decided  after  full  argument  and  to  ask  for  execution.  Delay 
and  hesitation  now  would  be  an  admission  of  failure  by  the  Dem- 
ocratic party,  an  admission  of  reckless  and  ignorant  speech,  like 
the  admission  of  conceahnent  implied  in  the  Republican  sugges- 
tion of  investigation,  and  in  this  would  be  found  a  fresh  argument 
for  Philippine  independence,  since  after  fifteen  years  both  parties 
would  admit  that  the  American  people  have  never  understood  the 
situation  in  the  islands,  which  all  these  years  they  have  in  theory 
been  governing.    I  say  again.  What  a  confession! 


THE  SOURCES  OF  OPPOSITION. 

We  cannot  expect  that  the  defeated  party  will  cease  to  argue, 
to  protest,  and  to  prophesy  all  manner  of  evil,  but  we  have  no 
right  on  that  account  to  falter.  Those  men  who  Uke  President 
Taft  are  responsible  in  large  measure  for  the  retention  of  the 
islands,  and  who  like  him  have  been  especially  prominent  in  their 
administration,  naturally  will  not  admit  that  they  have  been 
wrong.  They  are  committed  too  strongly  to  recede  now,  but  we 
must  remember  that  they  are  not  impartial.  They  are  pleading 
their  own  case,  they  are  insisting  that  they  have  succeeded,  and 
their  own  reputations  are  at  stake.  All  their  arguments  must  be 
taken  with  that  allowance. 


The  opposition  to  the  policy  of  the  Democratic  party  is  largely 
inspired  by  them,  as  is  susceptible  of  proof,  and  they  are  able  to 
rally  the  officials  who  are  concerned  in  the  present  government 
of  the  islands  and  those  who  profit  by  it:  important  elements 
in  the  Catholic  Church,  but  in  the  islands  themselves  only  the 
foreign  elements  of  the  church,  not  the  native  priesthood;  some  of 
the  Americans  in  the  islands,  but  by  no  means  all;  many  excel- 
lent people  who  believe  that  missionary  enterprise  in  the  islands 
will  be  set  back;  many  who  think  that  our  government  is  confer- 
ring great  benefits  on  the  Filipino  people  which  will  be  lost  if  we 
withdraw,  and  many  men  who  have  never  given  the  question  any 
serious  thought,  but  go  with  their  party. 

When  we  find  in  the  columns  of  certain  newspapers  day  after 
day  articles  opposing  Philippine  independence  and  repeating  in 
various  forms  the  arguments  which  have  been  answered  so  often, 
— ^the  statements  about  illiteracy,  diversity  of  language,  savage 
tribes,  which  have  so  often  been  proved  untrue;  when  we  find  a 
society  formed  to  advocate  not  the  ultimate  freedom  of  the 
islands,  but  their  *' retention,"  officered  by  former  and  present 
members  of  the  insular  government,  and  apparently  supplied 
with  abundant  funds, — ^we  cannot  help  seeing  that  a  combination 
exists  to  obstruct  and  defeat  the  policy  of  the  Democratic  party. 
When  in  addition  we  find  the  National  City  Bank  of  New  York, 
the  very  citadel  of  the  "interests"  which  have  so  long  sought  to 
influence  the  government  of  the  United  States  for  their  private 
gain,  issuing  a  long  circular  against  Philippine  independence,  in 
which  it  presents  the  familiar  arguments,  financial  and  humani- 
tarian, and  urges  the  Administration  to  make  it  clear  that  "there 
is  no  serious  difference  of  opinion  in  the  United  States"  as  to  the 
continuance  of  the  existing  relationship,  we  can  entertain  no 
doubt  as  to  the  source  whence  comes  the  money  that  supports 
this  combination.  The  National  City  Bank  is  not  a  philan- 
thropic institution,  nor  was  it  organized  for  the  discussion  of  ab- 
stract political  questions,  nor  yet  to  promote  any  theories  of  gov- 
ernment. It  is  severely  practical,  and  exists  solely  to  m.ake 
money  for  those  who  own  it.  Its  appearance  in  this  field  betrays 
the  body  of  practical  men  who  hope  to  make  money  for  them- 
selves by  persuading  this  government  to  retain  the  islands  at  the 
expense  of  the  great  body  of  tax-payers,  against  the  will  of  the 


8 

Filipino  people  and  in  disregard  of  every  principle  that  we  have 
prized. 

But  in  what  a  position  would  the  National  City  Bank  place  the 
Democratic  party  if  after  fifteen  years  of  indignantly  denounc- 
ing its  opponents  and  asserting  its  own  high  purpose  it  were 
now  to  admit  that  "there  is  no  serious  difference  of  opinion  in 
the  United  States"  as  to  the  Republican  policy  in  the  Philip- 
pine Islands ! 

The  following  paragraph  from  the  New  York  Journal  of  Com- 
merce, alluding  to  the  banquet  which  the  new  Philippine  Society 
proposes  to  have  in  New  York  on  June  12th,  exposes  the  naked 
truth  and  the  real  source  of  opposition: 

"The  banquet  will  be  under  the  auspices  of  the  Philippine 
Society,  of  which  both  Mr.  Taft  and  Mr.  Wright  are  officers. 
The  society  has  lately  been  organized  with  an  avowed  non-parti- 
san purpose  for  the  object  of  promoting  Philippine  welfare.  The 
most  influential  of  those  now  in  control  of  it  are  men  who  have 
been  connected  with  the  Philippine  Government  in  one  way  or 
another. 

"The  discussion  of  the  relation  between  the  United  States 
and  the  PhiHppines  is  considered  specially  important  now,  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  the  so-called  'Fallows  Syndicate,'  which 
is  understood  to  be  backed  by  Standard  Oil  capital,  is  preparing 
to  begin  the  development  of  the  islands.  Announcements  lately 
made  place  the  sum  available  for  the  operations  of  the  concern 
at  about  $10,000,000.  The  plan  appears  to  be  that  of  building 
sugar  'centrals'  in  order  to  increase  the  production  of  sugar,  and 
in  various  ways  to  apply  American  capital  to  insular  industries. 
There  has  been  a  statement  that  this  concern  would  take  over 
the  work  of  exploiting  Standard  Oil  products  in  the  Philippines, 
but  this  remains  to  be  verified. 

"American  business  men  are  taking  the  position  that  they 
cannot  invest  largely  in  the  Philippines  unless  they  are  assured 
that  the  Government  will  continue  upon  practically  the  same 
basis  as  at  present,  and  will  assure  them  undisturbed  possession 
of  such  investments  as  they  may  make.  It  could  not  be  learned 
yesterday  whether  the  syndicate  will  refuse  to  go  into  business 
and  to  place  its  funds  in  the  islands  unless  such  assurance  is  given, 
but  the  assumption  in  well-informed  quarters  is  that  it  will  so 
refuse.  It  is  believed  that  the  present  Administration  cannot 
give  that  assurance  in  set  terms  consistently  with  its  platform 
pledges,  and  this  seems  to  be  recognized,  but  there  is  a  preva- 
lent opinion  that  it  might  be  forced  to  assume  an  attitude  which 


9 

would  make  practically  certain  its  abstention  from  any  Execu- 
tive interference  tending  to  change  the  basis  of  Government  in 
the  islands  during  the  coming  four  years." 

It  is  not  surprising  that  Bishop  Fallows,  who  visited  the  islands 
with  his  son,  the  head  of  the  Fallows  Syndicate,  and  others  to 
consider  the  chances  for  investment,  and  whose  travels  with  the 
party  and  a  representative  of  the  Philippine  Commission  are 
chronicled  in  the  New  York  Times,  returns  home  ready  to  tes- 
tify that  the  Filipinos  are  unfit  for  independence.  It  is  an  in- 
auspicious combination  of  religion  and  dollars. 

An  opposition  made  up  of  so  many  elements,  backed  by  the 
capitalists  who  have  investments  in  the  islands,  having  full  access 
to  the  newspaper  press,  can  and  naturally  will  talk  a  great  deal, 
and  make  many  assumptions  and  allegations  of  fact  which  accord 
with  its  views,  but  which  are  none  the  less  unfounded.  It  is 
well  to  consider  the  character  of  these  witnesses  before  we  deal 
with  their  positions. 


THE   OPPOSITION   FROM    OFFICIALS. 

Let  us  take  first  the  officials  and  their  dependents,  all  of  whom 
have  been  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  responsible  for  or  connected 
with  our  government  of  the  islands.  If  it  has  been  good,  they 
are  entitled  to  the  credit.  If  it  has  been  in  any  respect  bad,  they 
are  liable  to  be  blamed.  When  the  question  is  considered  whether 
our  administration  has  been  good  or  bad,  they  are  on  trial.  With 
some  it  is  purely  a  question  of  reputation.  With  others  it  is 
also  a  question  of  money,  since  their  salaries  are  at  stake.  They 
are  not  different  from  other  men,  and  are  influenced  by  the  same 
motives  that  affect  our  officials  at  home.  We  have  been  govern- 
ing ourselves  for  nearly  a  century  and  a  quarter,  and  during  that 
time  parties  and  candidates  have  come  and  gone,  and  at  election 
after  election  they  have  been  tried  by  the  people.  During  that 
whole  period  has  there  ever  been  a  candidate  who  has  not  praised 
his  own  past  and  who  has  not  condemned  the  acts  and  the 
policy  of  his  opponent?  Has  there  been  a  party  once  trusted 
with  power  that  did  not  "point  with  pride''  to  its  record?    If 


10 

the  people  believed  this  self-praise,  no  man  would  ever  be  defeated 
for  re-election,  no  party  would  ever  be  driven  from  power.  Lori- 
mer,  Becker,  Quay,  Cox,  and  others  like  them  would  rank  with 
Washington  and  Lincoln,  and  no  suspicion  of  corruption  would 
attach  to  any  official  in  the  United  States.  That  the  Democratic 
party  is  now  in  power  with  its  great  majority  is  proof  that  the 
people  do  not  believe  these  self-serving  statements  at  home. 
Why  should  they  assume  that  they  are  not  equally  fallacious 
when  made  in  the  Philippine  Islands?  Add  to  this  natural  and 
human  reason  for  resisting  a  change  of  policy  the  material  con- 
siderations, salaries,  power,  and  the  other  benefits  which  the 
retention  of  the  islands  secures  to  those  who  share  in  or  hold 
office  under  the  present  Phihppine  Commission,  or  who  profit 
by  the  advertisements  and  other  business  which  it  can  distribute, 
and  it  is  not  surprising  that  there  is  a  body  of  Americans,  includ- 
ing the  editors  of  American  papers  in  the  islands  who  cannot  be 
persuaded  that  the  Filipinos  should  ever  be  given  their  inde- 
pendence. 

The  capitalists  who  have  bought  sugar  lands,  or  made  other 
investments  in  the  islands,  would  naturally  always  prefer  a  gov- 
ernment by  their  own  fellow-countrymen  to  any  other.  The 
foreign  investors,  English  and  others,  do  not  share  their  fear  that 
the  Filipinos  will  treat  the  foreign  capitalist  unjustly,  but,  what- 
ever the  danger,  the  investors  have  no  right  to  insist  that  we 
shall  depart  from  our  settled  pohcy  and  abandon  our  principles 
for  them.  They  went  there  with  their  eyes  open.  Even  Mr. 
Taft  has  always  until  now  asserted  that  our  purpose  was  em- 
bodied in  the  phrase,  ''The  Philippines  for  the  Filipinos."  His 
Secretary  of  War,  echoing  very  clearly  his  chief's  views,  said  only 
last  December  in  his  annual  report  that  our 

"policy  may  be  expressed  as  having  for  its  sole  object  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  Filipinos  for  popular  self-government  in  their  own  inter- 
est and  not  in  the  interest  of  the  United  States/' 


11 


THE  AMERICAN  INVESTORS. 

But  Cardinal  Gibbons  in  his  letter  says: 

''To  withdraw  from  the  Philippines  at  a  fixed  time  in  the  future, 
regardless  of  conditions  in  those  islands,  would  work  a  serious 
injustice  to  the  many  Americans,  and  far-seeing  citizens  of  other 
countries  who  have  invested  their  money  in  developing  the  re- 
sources of  those  islands.  ...  It  would  work  great  harm  to  those 
investors  as  well  as  to  the  Filipinos  themselves  for  this  country 
to  withdraw  and  witness  a  resultant  reign  of  anarchy." 

Yet,  as  has  been  said,  Cardinal  Farley,  and  many  other  eminent 
Catholic  prelates  a  few  years  ago,  signed  a  petition  urging  Con- 
gress to  grant  the  Philippine  Islands  their  independence;  and 
Cardinal  Gibbons  wrote: 

''It  appears  to  me  that  we  cannot  retain  them  [the  Phihppines] 
indefinitely,  since  such  retention  is  so  opposed  to  our  traditional 
policy." 

Has  the  investment  of  American  capital  caused  a  change  of  view, 
or  have  the  years  of  American  rule  rendered  the  FiUpinos  less  fit 
to  govern  themselves?  In  either  case  we  cannot  afford  to  delay 
action.  Every  dollar  of  American  capital  will  strengthen  the 
Cardinal's  argument  in  favor  of  investors.  Every  year  of  con- 
tinued American  rule  will  enhance  the  unfitness. 

The  opponents  of  independence  have  long  foreseen  the  effect 
of  this  argument,  and  have  done  their  best  to  stimulate  invest- 
ment, all  the  while  veiling  their  purpose  with  hypocritical  talk  of 
ultimate  independence.  Their  real  feeling  finds  private  expres- 
sion, however,  and  it  is  clearly  expressed  in  a  letter  written  by  a 
government  employee  in  the  Philippines,  a  college  man  who  won 
distinction  in  his  undergraduate  days  as  an  able  student,  and 
who  has  earned  promotion  in  the  Insular  service  by  his  executive 
ability.  The  letter  appeared  in  the  Nation,  and  in  it  he  said, 
after  referring  to  the  visit  of  Secretary  Dickinson  and  the  disap- 
pointment of  the  Filipinos  that  a  magnificent  petition  for  inde- 
pendence "with  thousands  of  signers  from  every  province"  was 
not  cordially  received  by  the  Secretary: 


12 

"You  will  infer  that  the  pohtical  horizon  is  pretty  dark,  but 
it  must  not  be  imagined  that  we  Americans  oppress  our  minds 
very  much  with  the  doleful  situation.  We  go  on  about  our  work 
and  think  about  it  as  Uttle  as  possible.  It  really  doesn't  matter 
what  the  natives  think  or  do  about  politics.  American  capital 
is  being  invested  here  to  such  an  extent  that  independence  is  not  in 
the  slightest  degree  a  present  menace,  and  the  inore  capital  comes, 
the  farther  off  is  independence.'' 

This  states  the  case  in  a  nutshell.  Every  month  that  the 
Democratic  Administration  allows  the  officials  now  in  power  to 
remain  and  pursue  their  avowed  policy  increases  the  difficulty  of 
granting  the  islands  independence  and  furnishes  the  enemy  with 
fresh  arguments.     The  time  to  act  is  now. 

Well  does  Seiior  Quezon  meet  the  argument  when  he  says: 

"Supposing  that  250  business  men  of  Manila,  of  whom  225  are 
Americans  and  other  foreigners  and  twenty-five  are  Filipinos, 
were  against  Philippine  independence;  is  that  a  good  reason 
for  withholding  from  us  our  inherent  right?  Should  225  outsiders 
and  twenty-five  natives  have  more  right  than  7,000,000  Filipinos 
in  the  affairs  of  the  latter's  land?  Supposing  that  there  may  be 
business  unrest  because  of  change  of  government,  is  this  enough 
reason  for  not  estabUshing  an  independent  Philippine  govern- 
ment? 

►  "To  estabhsh  the  RepubUc  of  the  United  States  cost  almost 
the  total  destruction  of  business  in  this  country  for  several  years, 
and  yet  this  was  not  considered  a  serious  objection  to  American 
independence." 

The  statement  of  Cardinal  Gibbons  that  a  reign  of  anarchy 
will  result  if  independence  is  granted  is  the  purest  assumption. 
It  is  like  the  gloomy  prophecies  of  ruin  with  which  the  friends  of 
protection  greet  the  new  tariff,  and  to  be  as  little  regarded.  Let 
Seiior  Earnshaw,  the  new  delegate  from  the  Philippines,  himself 
a  business  man  with  large  interests,  answer  it: 

"All  this  fuss  about  insurrection,  revolution,  and  destruction 
of  property  is  pure  talk.  The  Filipinos  are  not  fools  and  it  takes 
a  great  deal  more  than  a  change  of  government  to  make  us  change 
our  prosperity.  When  we  are  ready  to  elect  our  officers — that  is, 
the  officers  for  the  Philippine  Republic — ^we  expect  no  racial 
troubles  or  efforts  to  prevail  one  over  another.  We  are  now  ready 
to  govern  our  own  affairs,  and  eight  years  more,  as  is  planned  by 


13 

the  Jones  bill,  with  the  present  system  of  education  and  all  other 
forces  which  are  bringing  up  the  Filipinos  to  a  well-advanced 
people,  will  entirely  fit  us  to  assume  our  role  among  the 
nations." 

''We  believe  that  solid  business  conditions  will  endure  under 
a  Filipino  government,  and  we  base  our  belief  upon  our  knowledge 
of  the  Filipino  character." 

Senor  Earnshaw  stated  that  the  people  of  the  islands  were 
unanimous  in  favor  of  independence;  the  feeling  was  not  con- 
fined to  the  irresponsible,  but  men  of  property  are  among  those 
most  eager  for  the  change.     He  said: 

''The  main  thing,  the  essential  thing  in  the  whole  matter  is 
this:  that  something  definite  be  given  us.  We  want  something 
specific  in  the  way  of  time,  not  'when  we  are  fit  for  self-govern- 
ment,' or  'when  it  shall  seem  best'  in  the  eyes  of  somebody.  We 
want  the  year,  month,  and  day,  and  until  that  date  is  set  there 
will  be  unrest  and  disquiet  in  the  Philippines — nothing  at  all  Uke 
revolution  or  rebellion,  but  an  unhealthful  unrest. 

"The  Philippines  are  in  an  ideal  condition  at  present  to  in- 
augurate the  beginning  of  this  change,  and  I  am  going  to  devote 
my  time  to  bringing  it  about." 

To  the  suggestion  that  our  tutelage  is  needed  to  prepare  the 
FiUpinos  for  independence,  reply  may  be  made  in  the  words  of 
President  Roosevelt  to  the  Negro  Business  Men's  Association: 

"It  is  as  true  of  a  race  as  of  an  individual  that  while  outsiders 
can  help  to  a  certain  degree,  yet  the  real  help  must  come  in  the 
shape  of  self-help." 

Men  learn  to  be  independent  by  being  independent, — ^by  their 
own  mistakes.  Centuries  of  English  rule  in  India  have  carried 
the  Indians  farther  from  self-government.  Mr.  Roosevelt's  state- 
ment is  sound.  No  one  can  read  history  and  doubt  it.  Why  are 
we  not  wise  enough  to  recognize  the  truth  and  act  upon  it? 


14 


THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH. 

But  the  change  of  opinion  by  certain  representatives  of  the 
CathoUc  Church  and  their  opposition  as  CathoHcs  to  PhiUp- 
pine  independence  may  bring  that  church  into  an  attitude  dan- 
gerous aUke  to  the  church  and  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
Men  of  other  churches,  who  oppose  independence,  and  the  mis- 
sionaries of  other  denominations  as  the  writer  knows  by  personal 
experience,  urge  as  a  reason  for  believing  that  the  islanders  are 
unfit  for  independence  that  they  have  been  under  Catholic  in- 
fluence for  centuries.  It  is  a  fact  that  an  enormous  majority  of 
the  Filipinos,  some  seven  or  eight  millions  against  six  hundred 
thousand,  are  Catholics.  Can  that  church  afford  to  admit  the 
argument  of  its  religious  opponents  and  agree  that  centuries  of 
CathoHc  teaching  leave  a  people  so  ignorant,  so  uncivilized,  so 
destitute  of  self-control,  that  they  are  unfit  to  govern  themselves? 
It  is  a  dangerous  admission. 

Again,  it  is  well  known  that  the  Filipinos  were  driven  into  their 
last  rebellion  against  the  Spaniards  by  the  course  of  the  Friars 
in  dealing  with  the  tenants  on  their  large  estates,  and  that  the 
United  States  saw  no  way  out  of  the  difficulties  caused  thereby 
except  the  purchase  of  these  estates  at  the  expense  of  the  Fili- 
pino people.  If  the  Filipinos  now  find  the  Catholic  Church 
arrayed  among  the  opponents  of  their  independence,  is  it  likely 
to  increase  their  love  for  that  church  or  strengthen  the  hold  of 
its  representatives  upon  them?  This  is  a  question  which  the 
Catholics  of  the  United  States  will  do  well  to  consider. 

Yet,  again,  it  is  perhaps  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
United  States  when  the  Catholic  Church  has  undertaken  to  throw 
its  influence  into  the  scale  when  a  great  question  of  national 
policy  was  under  discussion.  Can  it  afford  to  insist  that  the 
great  principles  of  American  liberty  shall  be  set  aside  and  des- 
potic government  be  maintained  over  millions  of  people? 

If  it  is  dangerous  to  the  church,  is  it  not  also  dangerous  to  the 
country?  Is  not  the  attempt  of  a  church  to  influence  the  State 
one  of  the  very  things  which  drove  our  fathers  to  America?  Is 
not  the  separation  of  Church  and  State  a  corner-stone  of  our  in- 
stitutions?   Is  the  attempt  to  establish  ecclesiastical  influence 


15 

over  our  political  action  one  effect  of  the  imperialism  which  the 
Democratic  party  has  denounced?  Every  true  American  is  will- 
ing that  every  other  man  may  choose  his  own  faith  and  worship 
God  in  his  own  way,  but  when  any  religious  beUef  controls  a  man's 
action  as  a  citizen  and  destroys  his  independence,  it  becomes  a 
danger  not  to  be  disregarded. 

Whatever  our  individual  faith  may  be,  we  are  all  American 
citizens,  bound  to  maintain  the  principles  which  have  made  our 
government  great  and  powerful.  It  will  be  a  sad  day  for  both 
Church  and  State  when  Catholics  as  such  are  arrayed  against 
Protestants,  or  when  the  members  of  any  church  vote  as  their 
clergymen  direct. 

The  attitude  of  the  Americans  who  have  had  experience  in  the 
islands,  and  the  argument  that  we  are  conferring  benefits  on  the 
Filipinos,  which  will  be  lost  if  independence  is  granted,  will  be 
dealt  with  later  in  this  paper. 


THE  QUESTION  STATED. 

Now  what  is  the  Philippine  question?  We  are  holding  against 
their  will  some  eight  millions  of  people  thousands  of  miles  from 
our  shores,  having  overcome  their  resistance  by  force  of  arms. 
We  do  not  propose  ever  to  make  them  American  citizens,  for  it 
is  inconceivable  that  the  result  of  a  contested  Presidential  election 
should  ever  depend  on  the  returns  from  Manila  or  the  vote  of 
Iloilo.  The  choice  is  between  giving  them  the  right  to  govern 
themselves,  or  holding  them  in  subjection  governed  by  officers 
of  our  selection  as  such  officers  see  fit. 

The  present  experiment  costs  us  some  $40,000,000  a  year  accord- 
ing to  the  figures  given  by  Hon.  W.  A.  Jones,  Chairman  of  the 
Insular  Committee,  in  his  speech  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
on  January  28th  last,  and  it  is  to  be  observed  that  every  dollar 
of  this  is  spent  for  military  and  naval  purposes,  including  the 
transportation  and  care  of  our  troops  in  the  islands,  some  12,000 
American  soldiers  and  6,000  scouts. 

^'This  sum   exceeds  the   total   annual   value  of   the   commerce 
between  the  Philippines  and  the  United  States," 


16 

and  not  one  cent  of  it  is  spent  for  any  benefit  to  the  Filipinos. 
It  is  what  we  pay  to  hold  the  islands  in  subjection,  and  to  this  may 
fairly  be  added  no  slight  portion  of  the  enormous  sums  which  we 
spenff  on  our  navy,  often  justified  on  the  ground  that  we  need  more 
ships  because  of  our  Philippine  possessions.  Truly  the  total 
amount  that  we  pay  for  the  purpose  of  holding  our  new  colony 
against  its  will  is  a  very  considerable  addition  to  the  expenditure 
of  the  United  States. 

The  Filipinos  unanimously  desire  their  independence.  Upon 
this  proposition  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.  The  Filipino 
Assembly  by  unanimous  vote  has  insisted  upon  it.  Seiior  Quezon, 
their  commissioner,  at  Boston  on  January  9th,  1912,  said: 

''I  am  just  back  from  a  visit  to  the  islands.  I  have  talked  with 
men  in  all  walks  of  life,  and  let  me  tell  you  how,  calling  as  witness 
to  my  words  the  Heavenly  Father,  that  they  all  have  the  one 
most  urgent  desire  to  see  their  Motherland  free." 

On  January  27th,  1913,  Senor  Quezon  said: 

''Aguinaldo  attended  the  monster  meeting  held  at  Manila  to 
celebrate  Democratic  victory  in  the  United  States,  but  so  did 
thousands  of  other  prominent  Filipinos  and  some  Americans. 
Of  this  meeting  Justice  Moreland,  of  the  Supreme  Court,  said  to 
me:  'If  the  American  people  could  have  witnessed  this  great 
demonstration  they  would  give  you  your  independence  to-morrow. 
It  was  a  most  impressive  sight  to  witness  such  a  great  gathering 
so  orderly  that  not  even  one  policeman  was  necessary  to  preserve 
order.'     Justices  Carson  and  Trent  both  indorsed  this  view." 

These  are  Americans  of  experience  in  the  islands. 

Seiior  Earnshaw,  the  newly  elected  Commissioner  from  the 
islands,  supported  by  the  Commission  and  by  the  Filipino  Assem- 
bly, has  spoken  thus: 

"The  Filipino  people  have  arrived  at  a  point  where  they  believe 
that,  for  many  reasons,  there  should  be  some  definite  statement 
of  the  poHcy  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  Philippines. 
Independence  has  been  promised  to  us,  but  we  are  growing,  year 
after  year,  hampered  in  our  natural  development  because  no  one 
knows  what  is  to  come.  No  great  business  concern  could  expect 
to  be  prosperous  or  successful  under  such  circumstances. 

''The  independence  of  the  Phihppines  is  essential  to  the  real 
future  of  the  islands.     A  temporary  Government  was  established 


17 

there  since  American  occupation,  but  for  fifteen  years  we  have 
had  no  definite  statement  of  what  is  to  become  of  us.  In  such 
condition  we  cannot  remain,  as  it  is  detrimental  to  business  and 
unfair  to  the  well-being  of  the  Filipinos.  Without  a  stable 
government  business  and  capital  cannot  be  established." 

Senor  Osmena,  the  speaker  of  the  Philippine  Assembly,  said 
to  a  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Times  in  an  interview  pub- 
lished on  May  11,  1913: 

''I  can  say  definitely  that  the  people  are  all  united  for  inde- 
pendence and  the  Filipinos  as  a  people  really  desire  it." 

If  American  testimony  is  needed,  it  is  not  lacking.  The  last 
investigating  committee,  the  so-called  "Taft  party,"  because  it 
was  collected  by  him  and  saw  the  islands  under  his  guidance, 
supplies  this  testimony  in  abundance. 

Let  me  quote  only  two  witnesses,  both  members  of  the  party. 
James  A.  Leroy,  formerly  secretary  of  a  Philippine  Commissioner, 
said  in  a  letter  to  the  Boston  Transcript: 

"It  need  not  be  said  here  again  as  it  is  now  admitted  by  all 
who  know  the  situation  in  the  Islands  that  independence  is  the 
ideal  of  nearly  all  Filipinos." 

Representative  Parsons  of  New  York,  a  strong  Republican,  in 
a  letter  to  the  Tribune  said: 

^' There  is  no  question  that  all  the  Filipino  parties  are  now  in 
favor  of  independence." 

In  1910  an  impartial  English  observer  wrote  thus  to  the  London 

Times: 

"So  far  as  there  are  any  poHtical  parties  in  the  Philippines, 
their  creeds  differ  only  in  the  degree  of  their  professed  animosity 
to  American  domination,  and  the  urgency  with  which  they  de- 
mand independence." 

Another,  writing  of  Secretary  Dickinson's  visit,  says  this: 

"Three  weeks  later,  on  July  25,  Manila  was  again  en  fete  in  honor 
of  Mr.  John  M.  Dickinson,  United  States  Secretary  of  War,  who 
had  arrived  in  the  islands  on  the  preceding  day.     As  one  part 


18 

of  the  festivities,  a  body  of  5,000  Filipino  school  children  sang 
American  patriotic  songs,  massed  in  a  huge  open-air  grand  stand. 
.  .  .  The  5,000  children  were  dressed  some  in  red,  some  in  white, 
and  some  in  blue;  and  they  were  so  seated  that  the  whole  grand 
stand  made  one  great  American  flag.  ...  It  was  very  pretty;  and 
afterwards  I  spoke  to  one  of  the  leading  Filipino  public  men  and 
asked  him  what  those  children,  down  in  their  little  hearts,  really 
thought  of  the  flag  which  they  patterned  so  charmingly  and  waved 
with  so  much  enthusiasm,  and  there  was  no  hesitation  in  his 
reply:— 

'''They  hate  it — every  one  of  them!  The  Americans  will  tell 
you  that  that  is  not  so;  but  I  tell  you  that  every  child  is  taught 
at  home  to  hate  the  Stars  and  Stripes.  The  Americans  know 
nothing  of  our  nature;  they  never  will  know  anything.  We  are 
Orientals,  and  we  do  not  show  our  feelings;  and,  therefore,  you 
will  hear  that  the  mass  of  the  people  is  indifferent  and  has  no 
real  yearning  for  independence.  It  is  not  true.  We  wave  the 
flag  because,  for  the  present,  we  must;   and  we  hate  it  more  and 


Is  not  this  inevitable?  We  undertake  to  teach  the  Filipinos 
American  ideals;  to  make  them  over  on  the  American  pattern, 
to  turn  Asiatics  into  New  Englanders.  We  tell  them  "that  all 
men  are  created  equal "  and  that  "governments  derive  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed"  and  they  learn  the 
lesson  readily.  They  had  learned  it  before  we  landed.  They 
knew  our  history  and  our  national  principles.  Yet  when  they 
say,  "Why  are  not  we  in  our  own  land  equal  to  you?"  and  "Why 
should  our  government  not  derive  its  powers  from  our  consent?" 
we  swallow  the  very  ideals  that  we  undertake  to  teach  and  reply 
"We  are  a  superior  people  and  therefore  must  govern  you  with- 
out your  consent."  Is  not  this  fatuous?  Well  may  the  Filipino 
answer  in  the  words  of  Emerson: 

"United  States!  the  ages  plead, — 
Present  and  Past  in  under-song, — 
Go  put  your  creed  into  your  deed, 
Nor  speak  with  double  tongue. 

For  sea  and  land  don't  understand. 

Nor  skies  without  a  frown 
See  rights  for  which  the  one  hand  fights 

By  the  other  cloven  down." 


19 

We  are  teaching  the  Filipinos  English.  We  enable  them  to 
read  our  history  and  the  words  of  our  great  statesmen.  As  a 
result,  Senor  Quezon,  in  his  address  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives last  May,  is  able  to  say: 

"In  the  language  of  that  great  apostle  of  human  freedom 
Daniel  Webster — 

'"No  matter  how  easy  may  be  the  yoke  of  a  foreign  power,  no 
matter  how  lightly  it  sits  upon  the  shoulders,  if  it  is  not  imposed 
by  the  voice  of  his  own  nation,  and  of  his  own  country,  he  will 
not,  he  cannot,  and  he  means  not  to  be  happy  under  its  burden.' 

"These  words  to  us,  Mr.  Chairman,  are  freedom's  text  and  ral- 
lying cry.  We  feel  their  truth,  deep  in  our  souls,  for  it  is  the  vital 
spot  of  our  national  hope." 

We  may  rest  assured  that  they  want  their  independence.  We 
do  not  need  an  investigating  commission  to  establish  that  fact. 
Upon  what  ground  can  we  deny  their  request? 

The  position  of  those  who  would  deny  independence  rests  in  the 
last  resort  upon  three  propositions: 

First:  The  Filipinos  are  an  inferior  people,  and  not  fit  to  gov- 
ern themselves. 

Second:   We  are  doing  them  great  good. 

Third:  All  or  most  of  this  good  will  be  lost  if  they  become  in- 
dependent, 

and  perhaps  under  this  head  comes  the  suggestion  that  interests 
to  which  we  owe  protection  will  suffer. 


THE  CAPACITY  OF  THE  FILIPINOS. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  testimony  as  to  the  ability  of  the  Fili- 
pinos. 

That  they  organized  a  government  which  commanded  the 
admiration  of  Senator  Hoar,  than  whom  no  better  judge  could 
easily  be  found,  and  that  this  government  with  inferior  arms  and 
no  warlike  experience  defended  itself  against  our  armies  for  some 
three  or  more  years,  are  facts  which  cannot  be  denied. 

To  this  fact  there  is  much  testimony  from  various  sources  to  be 
added: 


20 

Admiral  Dewey  on  June  27,  1898,  cabled: 

"In  my  opinion,  these  people  are  far  superior  in  their  intelli- 
gence and  more  capable  of  self-government  than  the  natives  of 
Cuba;  and  I  am  familiar  with  both  races." 

General  Merritt,  on  his  arrival  in  Paris  in  October,  1898,  was 
reported  as  saying: 

"The  Filipinos  impress  me  very  favorably.  I  think  great 
injustice  has  been  done  the  native  population.  .  .  .  They  are 
more  capable  of  self-government  than,  I  think,  the  Cubans  are. 
They  are  considered  to  be  good  Catholics.  They  have  lawyers, 
doctors,  and  men  of  kindred  professions,  who  stand  well  in  the 
community,  and  bear  favorable  comparison  with  those  of  other 
countries.     They  are  dignified,  courteous,  and  reserved." 

John  Barrett  saw  the  government  organized  by  the  Filipinos 
in  operation,  and  described  it  as 

"a  government  which  has  practically  been  administering  the 
affairs  of  that  great  island  [Luzon]  since  the  American  possession 
of  Manila,  and  which  is  certainly  better  than  the  former  admin- 
istration. It  has  a  properly  formed  cabinet  and  congress,  the 
members  of  which  in  appearance  and  manner  would  compare 
favorably  with  Japanese  statesmen.  .  .  .  The  congressmen  whose 
sessions  I  repeatedly  attended,  conducted  themselves  with  great 
decorum,  and  showed  a  knowledge  of  debate  and  parliamentary 
law  that  would  not  compare  unfavorably  with  the  Japanese  par- 
liament. The  executive  portion  of  the  government  was  made 
up  of  a  ministry  of  bright  men,  who  seemed  to  understand  their 
respective  positions,"  while  among  Aguinaldo's  advisers  were 
"men  of  acknowledged  abihty  as  international  lawyers." 

Captain  Hatch,  of  the  Eighteenth  Infantry,  after  serving  for 
more  than  a  year  in  the  islands  and  being  brought  in  contact  with 
thousands  of  the  people,  said: 

"The  Filipinos  are  Malays  softened  by  contact  with  the 
Spaniards.  .  .  .  The  Filipino  is  essentially  honest.  .  .  .  The  Fili- 
pinos are  a  deeply  religious  people.  .  .  .  They  are  a  temperate, 
sober  people.  During  a  year's  residence  among  them  I  never 
saw  a  drunken  Filipino.  They  are  a  cleanly  people.  They  are 
hospitable,  and  they  are  generous  in  their  hospitality.  They 
are  not  an  ignorant  people.  Their  intelligence  and  educational 
progress  are  apt  to  be  underestimated  because  of  failure  to  under- 


21 

stand  them.  Nearly  every  adult  can  read  and  write  in  the 
Tagalo  or  Viscayan  dialect;  while  the  natives  of  the  cities  and 
villages,  in  addition,  can  read  and  write  the  Spanish  language. 
Moreover,  most  adults  know  something  of  arithmetic,  geography, 
and  history.  I  was  surprised  one  day,  in  questioning  the  driver 
of  my  quily,  an  ordinary  poor  boy  of  eighteen,  to  find  that  he  had 
studied  geometry,  and  had  made  very  material  progress. 

"The  Filipinos  are  not  so  much  different  from  other  people. 
Their  customs,  habits,  hopes,  and  aspirations  are  deep-seated. 
Their  leaders  are  shrewd,  bright  men  of  much  ability;  the  masses 
are  earnest  in  their  loyalty. '^ 

An  American  Congressman,  Senator  Shafroth,  who  visited  the 
islands,  said: 

"The  general  impression  exists  among  many  Americans  that 
the  Philippine  people  are  savages.  A  visit  to  the  islands  will  cer- 
tainly dispel  any  such  delusion.  .  .  . 

"When  I  find  behind  the  prescription  desks  of  the  numerous 
drug-stores  of  the  islands,  even  when  kept  by  Americans  and 
Englishmen,  Filipinos  compounding  medicines  taken  from  bottles 
labelled  in  Latin;  when  I  see  behind  the  counters  of  banks  having 
large  capital  natives  acting  as  book-keepers  and  as  receiving  and 
paying  tellers;  when  I  find  them  as  merchants  and  clerks  in  al- 
most all  lines  of  business,  as  telegraph  operators  and  ticket  agents, 
conductors  and  engineers  upon  railroads,  and  as  musicians  ren- 
dering upon  almost  all  instruments  high-class  music;  when  I 
am  told  that  they  alone  make  the  observations  and  intricate  cal- 
culations at  the  Manila  observatory,  and  that  prior  to  the  insur- 
rection there  were  2,100  schools  in  the  islands  and  5,000  students 
in  attendance  at  the  Manila  university;  when  I  find  the  better 
class  living  in  good,  substantial,  and  sometimes  elegant  houses, 
and  many  of  them  pursuing  professional  occupations, — I  cannot 
but  conclude  that  it  is  a  vile  slander  to  compare  these  people  to 
the  Apaches  or  the  American  Indians.  .  .  . 

"The  best  evidence  of  the  abiUty  of  the  Philippine  people  to 
govern  themselves  is  that  they  possess  a  large  intelligent  class, 
thoroughly  identified  in  interest  with  the  islands,  and  capable  of 
administering  good  government.  The  civil  commission  has  rec- 
ognized this  ability  by  recently  adding  three  native  members 
to  that  governing  body;  by  appointing  three  Filipino  judges  of 
the  supreme  court;  by  selecting  about  half  of  the  judges  of  the 
first  instance  and  nearly  all  the  governors  of  the  provinces  from 
that  race;  and  by  appointing  a  solicitor-general  and  many  other 
officers  from  the  natives.  Are  these  officials  not  in  the  governing 
business,  and  do  they  not  perform  their  work  as  well  as  the  Ameri- 
cans?   Is  it  possible  that  they  are  capable  of  governing  because 


22 

they  were  appointed  by  the  representatives  of  a  distant  nation? 
Would  they  lose  that  ability  if  elected  or  chosen  by  properly  con- 
stituted authority  of  their  own?  In  the  latter  event  they  would 
make  far  better  officers,  because  they  would  consult  only  the 
interest  of  their  own  people  instead  of  that  of  a  nation  7,000 
miles  away." 

The  Filipinos  were  finally  allowed  to  choose  an  Assembly,  the 
lower  house  of  the  Island  legislature.  The  general  feeling  of  Amer- 
icans in  Manila  was  that  the  Assembly  would  prove  the  incapac- 
ity of  the  Filipinos  for  self-government,  but  Secretary  Taft,  after 
observing  its  sessions  for  three  weeks,  said  on  leaving  in  1906: 

"From  the  first  I  had  full  confidence  in  the  Legislative  Assembly 
— a  confidence  which  has  been  justified  by  its  actions.  So  far  it 
has  taken  a  conservative  form,  and  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  continue 
its  useful  patriotic  and  diligent  course.  I  have  yet  to  see  or  hear 
a  single  member  who  does  not  apparently  feel  a  full  sense  of  the 
responsibihty  of  his  duties  toward  his  constituents  and  country, 
and  I  am  sure  that  conservatism  rather  than  radicalism  will 
continue  to  mark  the  official  conduct  of  this  body.  I  leave  the 
Philippine  Islands  with  renewed  confidence  in  the  future  of  the 
Islands." 

Of  what  American  legislature,  municipal,  state,  or  national,  could 
any  American  speak  in  terms  of  equally  strong  praise? 

The  session  was  opened  in  the  presence  of  thirty-nine  governors 
of  provinces,  of  whom  all  but  some  six  were  Filipinos,  and  of  the 
Philippine  Commission,  three  of  whose  members  were  Filipinos. 
These  men  were  regarded  by  us  as  fit  to  govern  their  country- 
men, and  the  Assembly  added  its  record  of  ''useful,  patriotic, 
and  diligent"  conduct. 

Some  seven  years  have  passed  since,  and  the  Fifipinos  have 
done  nothing  to  disappoint  the  anticipations  of  Mr.  Taft.  In 
one  of  his  messages  to  Congress  he  made  a  statement  which  was 
confirmed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  in  his  annual  report  from  which 
the  following  passage  is  quoted: 

"In  no  way  has  the  progress  of  the  Filipino  people  been  better 
shown  than  by  their  increasing  participation  in  their  own  Govern- 
ment. Under  Spanish  control  the  native  Filipinos  were  prac- 
tically excluded  from  all  share  in  public  affairs.  Within  ten 
years  they  have  been  given,  and  now  exercise,  the  right  of  elect- 
ing all  of  their  municipal  officers.     Native  Filipinos  also  now 


23 

compose  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  officials  and  employees  of  the 
provincial  governments  and  nearly  sixty  per  cent,  of  the  officials 
and  employees  of  the  central  Government.  They  have  been 
given  their  own  Assembly — the  lower  house  of  the  Philippine 
Legislature,  which  is  composed  wholly  of  native  members,  chosen 
at  popular  election.  They  have  representation  on  the  Philip- 
pine Commission,  which  forms  the  upper  house.  They  divide 
with  Americans  the  direction  of  the  various  executive  depart- 
ments. The  chief  justice  and  two  of  the  associate  justices  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  about  half  of  the  judges  of  the  higher  courts 
and  all  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  are  Filipinos.  There  is  no 
branch  of  the  Government,  executive,  legislative  or  judicial 
where  Filipinos  are  not  represented  in  increasing  numbers  and 
where  their  influence  is  not  important." 

Let  me  add  the  testimony  of  Americans  who  have  lived  in  the 
islands  and  knoTVTi  the  people. 

Dr.  J.  N.  McDill,  of  Milwaukee,  on  April  9,  1913,  said  in  an 
address  to  the  Milwaukee  Press  Club: 

''The  census  of  1903  shows  the  population  of  the  islands  to  con- 
sist of  7,600,000  people.  Of  these,  7,000,000  are  Christians  and 
600,000  are  non-Christians.  Of  these  non-Christians  half  are 
Moros  or  Mohammedans  living  in  Mindanao  and  the  Jolo  group, 
and  the  other  half  are  uncivilized  people  of  the  mountains,  in 
tribes  living  in  widely  separated  districts.  These  600,000  people 
are  really  a  negligible  quantity  in  the  general  political  equation, 
but,  unfortunately,  these  are  the  people  who,  for  political  reasons, 
have  been  the  most  widely  advertised  feature  of  the  Philippine 
Islands. 

"  Their  repulsive  pictures  and  habits  have  been  persistently  and 
officially  portrayed  in  the  leading  magazines  of  this  country  and 
by  lecturers  until  the  majority  of  Americans  regard  them  as  typi- 
cal of  the  Filipino  people.  The  lecturer  in  vogue  just  now  in 
America  flashes  on  the  screen  a  life-size  rear  view  of  a  geestring- 
clad  Bontoc  Igorot  at  the  bat,  to  show  how  the  Filipinos  have 
taken  to  baseball.  This  picture  furnished  to  the  dignified 
Woman's  Club  of  Milwaukee  last  week  their  most  vivid  memory 
of  a  lecture  on  the  Philippines.  Contrasted  with  this  are  pict- 
ures depicting  the  wonderful  possibilities  of  the  islands  in  hemp, 
copra,  sugar,  and  tobacco  cultivation,  with  suggestions  as  to  what 
has  been  and  can  be  done  under  American  management.  The 
entire  issue  of  last  September's  National  Geographic  Magazine 
was  devoted  to  the  Head  Hunters  of  Northern  Luzon,  and  evi- 
dently has  made  a  great  impression  all  over  the  country.  This 
article  of  a  hundred  pages  and  one  hundred  and  six  wonderful 


24 

illustrations,  portraying  the  most  horrid  habits  possible  to  human 
kind,  was  written  by  a  prominent  government  official,  an  Ameri- 
can member  of  the  Philippine  Upper  House,  the  man  mentioned  in 
Judge  Blount's  recent  book  as  Hhe  official  digger-up  of  non- 
Christian  tribes'  and  as  'the  direct  calamity  that  has  befallen 
the  Filipinos  since  the  American  occupation.'  This  writer's 
official  reputation  for  honesty  is  protected  in  the  inconspicuous 
closing  sentence,  which  states  that  'the  sometimes  highly  objec- 
tionable customs  which  have  prevailed  or  still  prevail  among  the 
million  non-Christian  inhabitants  must  not  be  credited  to  the 
Filipinos,  the  civilized  and  Christianized  inhabitants  of  the  Philip- 
pines, of  whom  there  are  some  7,000,000.'  But  this  obscure 
note  fails  to  remove  the  false  impression  conveyed.  The  expense 
of  the  collection  of  this  and  similar  damaging  propaganda  is  paid 
for  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  helpless  Filipino  people. 

"  An  exuberant  magazine  article  of  last  year,  referring  to  Briga- 
dier-General Clarence  B.  Edwards's  achievements  in  Philippine 
affairs,  spoke  of  'the  strides  we  have  made  in  the  development 
of  the  8,000,000  naked  savages,  gory  head  hunters,  grinning 
Moros,  and  what  not  that  Dewey  pulled  out  of  the  wet  under  our 
Star-spangled  umbrella.'  This  is  the  sort  of  popular  trash  with 
which  Americans  are  blinded  to  the  importance  of  this  great 
national  problem.  The  Filipino  people  are  not  the  collection  of 
ethnological  curiosities  they  have  been  represented  to  the  popular 
mind.     This  is  a  cruel  calumny. 

''My  personal  experience  with  the  Filipinos  extended  over  a 
period  of  13  years,  the  ffist  3  years  of  which  I  spent  in  the  Army; 
during  the  last  5  years  I  was  connected  with  the  civil  government 
as  professor  of  surgery  on  a  semi-official  basis  in  the  University 
of  the  Philippines.  In  the  Provinces  and  in  Manila  I  met  men  and 
women  of  all  classes,  and  I  doubt  if  many  Americans  came  to 
know  them  better. 

"What  impresses  one  on  first  meeting  a  Filipino  is  his  self-pos- 
session, dignity,  and  courtesy;  he  has  an  exalted  idea  of  good 
breeding  and  an  intense  appreciation  of  elegance  of  manner  and 
of  dress.  Even  the  ordinary  Tao  of  the  lowest  class  is  quick  to 
perceive  the  difference  between  the  person  of  breeding  and  the 
boor.  Their  judgments  in  this  regard  are  unerring.  You  have 
frequently  heard  of  their  universal  love  of  music  as  a  racial  char- 
acteristic; among  the  educated  this  reaches  a  high  degree  of  de- 
velopment. An  appreciation  of  and  familiarity  with  the  best 
things  in  not  only  music,  but  art,  is  much  commoner  than  in  the 
corresponding  social  class  in  America. 

"The  women  of  the  upper  and  middle  classes  are  notably  char- 
acterized by  an  exquisite  manner,  and  in  graciousness  and  poise 
are  unexcelled  by  the  women  of  any  country.  If,  as  John  Adams 
has  said,  'the  manners  of  women  are   the  surest  criterion  by 


25 

which  to  determine  whether  a  republican  government  is  prac- 
ticable in  a  nation  or  not/  the  Filipino  people  are  pre-eminently- 
fitted  to  govern  themselves.  .  .  . 

^'  It  is  nonsense  to  say  that  the  Filipinos  are  inscrutable  or  mys- 
terious; they  are  nothing  of  the  sort;  they  are  quite  under- 
standable and  will  talk  freely  and  frankly  if  allowed  to  be  on  such 
terms  as  permit  of  freedom  and  frankness.  ...  As  laborers  and 
artisans,  they  are  capable  of  high  efficiency,  if  properly  handled, 
and  will  take  a  personal  pride  in  their  work.  Although  the  lower 
classes  are  subject  to  impulses  of  a  violent  nature,  often  resulting 
in  personal  injuries,  it  is  doubtful  if  they  are  more  so  than  the 
same  class  in  this  country. 

"As  a  race,  the  Filipinos  are  conservative;  their  decisions  are 
arrived  at  only  after  a  careful  consideration  of  every  phase  of  a 
question.  They  are  clever  lawyers,  and  their  jurists  are  notably 
impartial,  upright,  and  profound;  their  decisions  reviewed  by 
superior  courts  compare  most  favorably  with  those  of  the  Ameri- 
can members  of  the  bench. 

''In  conclusion  let  us  look  at  this  question  fairly.  It  seems 
evident  that  our  Philippine  policy  has  been  a  mistake.  We 
subjugated  these  people  in  what  we  thought  were  the  interests 
of  trade  expansion  and  the  strengthening  of  our  influence  in  the 
Orient;  we  justified  our  doing  so  by  a  hypocritical  assumption 
which  the  Filipinos  resent,  namely,  that  of  their  inability  to  govern 
themselves.  We  have  lost  the  opportunity  of  earning  a  nation's 
gratitude  and  love  and  of  assisting  them  in  the  proper  develop- 
ment of  their  wonderful  country.  Our  failure  to  avow  authori- 
tatively our  intentions  has  instilled  in  their  minds  suspicion  and 
distrust.  The  great  American  Republic  is  holding  7,000,000 
people  against  their  will  and  governing  them  by  a  theoretically 
benevolent  but  essentially  despotic  oligarchy  of  five  royally 
salaried  American  officials,  who  firmly  insist  on  our  retention  of  the 
islands  for  the  betterment  of  their  people.  The  successors  of  these 
officials  one  hundred  years  from  now  will  sing  the  same  song. 

"With  the  radical  change  in  the  Administration,  which  the 
people  so  emphatically  decreed,  there  is  hope  that  the  question 
will  be  treated  honestly,  without  hypocrisy,  without  a  stultifica- 
tion of  American  ideals,  and  that  the  Filipinos  will  be  given  a 
square  deal." 

L.  M.  Southworth  writes  from  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  as  follows, 
under  date  of  December  9,  1912: 

"My  dear  Sir, — I  am  an  American  citizen,  but  have  been  living 
in  the  Philippine  Islands  for  eight  years,  going  there  in  September, 
1904,  and  returning  to  the  United  States  in  September  of  the 
present  year. 


26 

"During  my  entire  residence  in  the  Philippines  I  have  been 
engaged  in  the  private  practice  of  law,  with  the  exception  of  two 
years  spent  in  the  office  of  the  prosecuting  attorney  of  the  judicial 
district  of  Manila.  While  engaged  in  the  practice  of  my  profes- 
sion, my  business  carried  me  to  every  section  of  the  islands  and 
brought  me  in  contact  with  the  people  of  all  classes. 

"During  my  service  as  prosecuting  attorney  of  the  judicial  dis- 
trict of  Manila,  containing  approximately  500,000  inhabitants, 
the  duties  of  my  position  brought  me  into  intimate  relations  with 
many  of  the  people  of  the  district,  including  all  of  the  native 
lawyers,  all  of  the  native  j  udges,  and  most  of  the  native  employees 
of  the  Government. 

''In  the  course  of  my  private  practice  and  in  the  discharge  of 
my  official  duties  I  have  come  in  contact  with  native  lawyers  of 
the  highest  talent  and  legal  attainments;  physicians  and  sur- 
geons, learned  and  skilful  in  their  profession;  merchants  who 
employ  the  latest  commercial  methods  and  observe  the  strictest 
business  integrity;  and  people  in  the  private  walks  of  life  of  the 
highest  intellectual  attainments,  educated  in  the  best  universities 
and  colleges  of  Europe,  speaking,  in  many  instances,  as  many  as 
five  foreign  languages. 

"  From  my  intimate  knowledge  of  the  Filipino  people,  gained  in 
the  manner  above  stated,  and  from  my  social  intercourse  with 
them,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  they  are  capable  of  self-government. 

^'  If  granted  their  independence,  I  believe  that  they  will  main- 
tain a  government  which  will  be  not  only  more  satisfactory  to 
them,  but  one  which  will  more  nearly  meet  their  needs  and  de- 
mands than  the  government  under  which  they  have  lived  for  the 
past  fourteen  years  or  any  government  which  could  be  given 
them  in  the  future  by  the  United  States  or  any  other  foreign 
power.  In  saying  this,  I  am  not  unmindful  of  the  great  improve- 
ments which  have  been  made  in  these  islands  since  American 
occupation,  nor  do  I  intend  to  underestimate  the  able  and  faith- 
ful services  rendered  these  people  by  many  American  officials. 
However,  I  do  mean  to  say  that  the  United  States  has  maintained 
a  government  in  these  islands  too  expensive  and  far  beyond  the 
needs  and  resources  of  these  people  and,  at  times,  extravagant 
and  wasteful. 

"But,  regardless  of  all  these  considerations,  the  people  of  these 
islands  never  have  been  and  never  will  be  satisfied  to  be  governed 
by  the  United  States  or  any  other  foreign  power. 

"They  want  independence.  It  is  the  one  dream  and  aspiration 
of  their  lives.  It  is  the  only  gleam  of  sunshine  that  cheers  their 
dark  fate,  the  result  of  war,  pestilence,  and  famine. 

"With  a  strong  religious  sentiment  underlying  the  lives  of  these 
people,  a  virtuous  womanhood  from  whom  must  spring  their 
future  citizens,  a  high  regard  for  law  and  official  authority,  a  fair 


27 

amount  of  general  education  now,  and  a  wonderful  aptness  for 
learning,  and  a  patriotism  which  is  so  lofty  and  pathetic  that  it 
should  touch  the  heart  of  every  unselfish  American  in  the  islands, 
there  is  no  reason  on  earth  why  these  people  should  not  be  granted 
independence. 

"I  do  not  believe  that  any  American  who  does  not  like  the 
Filipino  people  is  qualified  to  speak  with  any  degree  of  imparti- 
ality regarding  their  capacity  for  self-government,  and  I  believe 
the  fundamental  mistake  into  which  the  Republican  party  has  led 
the  American  people  during  the  last  fourteen  years  has  been  due 
to  the  circumstances  that  the  reports  of  its  agents  have  always 
been  tinctured  with  the  residuum  of  the  early  hostility  and  a 
strongly  acquired  taste  for  official  fife  in  the  Philippine  Islands." 

Upon  this  testimony  can  any  one  say  that  the  Filipinos  cannot 
govern  themselves?  Isn't  it  at  least  worth  while  to  give  them 
a  further  trial  such  as  Mr.  Jones  proposes  in  his  bill? 


WHAT  WE  HAVE  DONE  FOR  THE  ISLANDS. 

The  next  proposition  is  that  we  have  governed  them  well. 
Our  position  is  described  by  Mr.  Taft  and  Mr.  Stimson  in  identi- 
cal language  when  they  speak  of  "the  heavy  and  difficult  burden 
which  thus  far  we  have  been  bravely  and  consistently  sustaining.'' 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  ask  what  this  burden  is.  It  is  not 
a  burden  on  the  thought  or  time  of  the  American  people,  since 
in  the  words  which  I  have  quoted  he  bids  the  best  of  them  not 
"intermeddle"  with  the  Philippine  question.  There  is  no  honest 
American  who  does  not  know  that  he  has  given  little  or  no  time 
or  thought  to  Philippine  affairs.     Our  burden  is  not  intellectual. 

Is  it  financial?  Mr.  Taft  says,  "No,"  since  in  his  speech  at 
New  York  last  winter  he  said: 

"The  Philippines  have  cost  the  United  States  to  date  [Jan- 
uary, 1913]  $3,000,000  for  civil  expenses,  and  this  money  was 
appropriated  to  keep  them  from  starving.  The  expense  of  main- 
taining troops  in  the  islands  is  practically  nil." 

Mr.  Taft  doubtless  greatly  underestimated  the  expense,  but 
his  own  statement  answers  any  claim  from  him  or  his  friends 
that  the  burden  to  which  he  referred  is  financial. 


28 

It  is  not  the  expense  of  schools,  roads,  sanitation,  and  the  other 
like  benefits  which  we  claim  to  have  given  the  islanders.  These 
are  all  paid  for  by  Filipino  money  raised  by  taxation.  Secretary 
Stimson  in  his  report  on  the  subject  last  winter  recapitulated 
these  benefits,  and  added  ''and  the  cost  of  all  this  and  of  the 
much  more  that  has  been  similarly  done  has  been  borne  by  the 
Filipino  people  themselves."  The  Filipinos  pay  the  salaries  of 
the  Commissioners  and  all  the  other  American  officials,  they  pay 
the  teachers,  and,  in  a  word,  all  the  expenses  of  our  government. 
For  all  the  benefits  which  we  claim  to  have  given  the  Filipinos, 
they  owe  us  not  a  dollar. 

What,  then,  is  "the  heavy  and  difficult  burden  which  thus  far 
we  have  been  bravely  and  consistently  sustaining?"  Is  it  the 
labor  imposed  upon  the  few  Americans  who  hold  office  in  the 
islands?  They  do  not  seem  anxious  to  lay  it  down,  and,  if  they 
do,  there  are  many  anxious  to  take  their  places  and  their  emolu- 
ments. This  burden  is  like  the  "white  man's  burden"  of  the 
poet,  which  differs  from  every  other  burden  in  that  the  white 
man  never  wishes  to  throw  it  off,  and  is  always  anxious  to  in- 
crease it:  it  is  a  pure  poetic  fiction.  So  much  for  the  burden 
which  they  impose  on  us.  Before  proceeding  to  show  what  sort 
of  government  we  have  in  fact  been  giving  them,  let  me  first 
indicate  what  a  burden  we  have  been  imposing  on  them. 
«  I  will  pass  over  all  the  slaughter  and  destruction  of  property 
which  we  inflicted  on  the  islands  during  the  war  of  con- 
quest. That  can  never  be  pleasant  to  recall.  Let  me  begin 
with  the  restoration  of  peace,  and  ask  what  was  the  class  of 
Americans  whom  we  left  in  the  islands.  Let  Mr.  Taft  describe 
them. 

In  his  speech  to  the  New  York  Chamber  of  Commerce  already 
referred  to  he  said: 

"The  American  merchants"  there  "easily  caught  the  feeling 
of  hostility  and  contempt  felt  by  many  of  the  soldiers  for  the 
Filipinos,  and  were  most  emphatic  in  condemning  the  policy  of 
the  government  in  attempting  to  attract  the  Filipinos  and  make 
them  so  far  as  might  be  a  part  of  the  new  civil  order. 

"The  American  newspapers  which  were  estabhshed  readily 
took  the  tone  of  their  advertisers  and  their  subscribers,  and 
hence  it  is  that  the  American  community  in  the  Philippines  to-day 
is   largely   an   anti-Filipino    community,"    prone   apparently   in 


29 

dealing  with  the  natives  "to  call  them  names,  to  make  fun  of 
them,  and  to  deride  every  effort  toward  their  advancement  and 
development."  He  added  with  reason,  "This  is  unfortunate 
and  there  must  come  into  the  islands  a  new  set  of  merchants  who 
shall  view  the  situation  from  an  entirely  different  standpoint." 

He  said  also: 

"Were  I  assured  that  the  present  attitude  of  the  majority  of 
American  merchants  and  the  American  press  would  be  permanent, 
and  if  I  did  not  confidently  hope  that  there  must  be  a  great  change 
in  the  future,  I  should  be  very  much  discouraged  in  respect  to 
the  result  of  the  experiment  which  the  United  States  is  making 
in  these  islands." 

It  is  perhaps  permissible  to  add  in  confirmation  of  Secretary 
Taft's  statement  a  few  passages  from  the  letters  of  Denzil  H. 
Taylor.  This  young  man,  brought  up  in  New  Hampshire,  and 
graduating  at  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology  in 
1899,  went  to  the  Philippines  in  1901,  and  was  made  one  of  the 
provincial  board  which  governed  the  province  of  Ilocos  Norte 
in  Luzon,  where  he  held  the  place  of  provincial  supervisor  with 
high  praise  from  his  associates  until  he  died  at  his  post.  On 
May  12,  1902,  he  wrote: 

"I  have  a  few  words  to  say  about  teachers.  Of  course,  there 
are  many  good  and  faithful  ones  to  whom  nothing  but  praise 
should  be  given,  but  of  the  majority,  at  least  as  far  as  this  prov- 
ince is  concerned,  this  must  be  said:  Never  before  have  such 
a  number  of  incapables  and  cranks  been  deported  from  any 
country  as  were  sent  here  as  teachers.  They  are  here  simply 
for  what  they  can  get  out  of  it — have  neither  principles  nor 
morals.  They  domineer  over  and  oppress  the  natives.  Three 
in  the  province — two  of  them  Harvard  graduates — we  have 
been  obliged  to  take  arms  from,  as  being  unfit  to  use  firearms. 
They  would  enter  towns  in  the  dead  of  night  and  fire  right  and 
left  to  frighten  the  natives." 

In  another  letter  he  said: 

"As  to  morals  and  right  living,  what  sort  of  an  example  are 
many  of  our  soldiers,  our  officers,  and  even  our  school-teachers 
setting  to  the  to-be-uplifted  brother?  Many  a  man  when  he 
leaves  America  seems  to  leave  behind  all  ideas  of  right  living — 
anything  and  everything  is  allowable." 


30 

Later  Mr.  Leupp,  a  strong  friend  of  Mr.  Roosevelt,  in  the 
New  York  Evening  Post  of  June  11,  1904,  quoted  from  a  well- 
known  travelling  newspaper  correspondent,  who  writes  from 
anything  but  an  anti-imperialistic  point  of  view,  the  following 
words  in  reference  to  American  residents: 

''These  men  are  the  loudest  and  most  bitter  in  their  criticisms 
of  the  conduct  of  affairs.  They  disapprove  most  vigorously  the 
friendly  attitude  of  our  government  toward  the  natives,  and  de- 
nounce the  policy  of  'benevolent  assimilation'  as  preposterous  and 
visionary.  They  complain  because  Judge  Taft  and  his  associates 
have  shown  so  much  solicitude  for  the  welfare  of  the  natives 
and  so  little  for  the  American  residents.  They  object  to  the  ap- 
pointment of  so  many  Filipinos  to  office,  and  instead  of  culti- 
vating the  good  will  of  the  native  population,  and  creating  a 
demand  for  American  goods,  they  spend  their  time  and  energy 
finding  fault  and  making  gloomy  predictions. 

"The  people  here  described  have  sent  some  emissaries  to 
Washington  to  convince  the  authorities  that  things  are  all  wrong 
in  the  Philippines,  that  the  iron  hand  of  white  supremacy  should 
replace  the  Taft  policy  of  the  'Phihppines  for  the  Filipinos.' 
What  they  call  a  chamber  of  commerce  in  Manila  is  really  an 
organization  for  bringing  about  conditions  more  favorable  to 
the  exploitation  of  the  islands,  without  reference  to  the  welfare 
of  the  natives.  The  admission  of  Chinese  labor  is  the  first  thing 
the  chamber  of  commerce  wants  in  this  program. 

"The  relations  between  the  'American  element'  there  and  the 
Filipinos  are  mostly  seriously  strained;  the  newspapers  which 
cater  to  it  never  say  a  word  for  the  Filipinos,  nor,  for  that  matter, 
of  the  civil  government.  The  despicable  'little  brown  brother' 
poem  has  been  widely  circulated.  It  is  about  as  true  a  picture 
of  the  Filipinos  as  'The  Leopard's  Spots'  is  of  the  negro  in  Amer- 
ica. No  one  can  read  its  fierce  arraignment  of  the  natives  and 
learn  that  it  is  almost  a  national  hymn  with  our  soldiers  here, 
and  then  imagine  that  relations  between  the  two  races  are  very 
cordial." 

Six  years  after  Mr.  Taft  spoke,  one  of  his  successors.  Governor 
General  Smith,  pointed  out  with  regret  "the  growing  gulf  between 
the  two  peoples,"  saying  that  "an  era  of  ill-feeling  has  started  be- 
tween Americans  and  Filipinos,  and,  I  hesitate  to  say  it,  'race 
hatred.'" 

How  is  it  to-day?  Let  me  quote  from  an  article  written  by 
a  United  States  official,  who  is  bitterly  opposed  to  Philippine 


31 

Independence,  Herbert  N.  Witt,  of  the  United  States  Coast  and 
Geodetic  Survey,  who  in  a  letter  to  the  Boston  Transcript  pub- 
lished within  a  month  says: 

''But  the  thing  which  the  Phihppines  need  most  is  a  better 
class  of  Americans  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  Islands.  When 
the  best  class  of  Americans  can  be  induced  to  give  two  or  three 
years  to  a  residence  in  the  Islands,  a  residence  which  is  not  without 
its  charm,  they  may  dispel  the  erroneous  impression  of  Americans 
which  the  present  American  population  has  given  to  the  Far  East. 

"The  greater  part  of  our  population  in  the  Islands  is  made  up 
of  social  outcasts  from  our  big  cities,  a  host  of  political  parasites, 
a  small  army  of  camp  followers  who  came  out  with  the  army  of 
occupation,  and  a  great  number  of  ex-enlisted  men  who  thrive 
on  saloons  and  dance  halls  and  the  slimy  affairs  that  cluster  around 
these  institutions  in  Manila.  These  make  up  a  huge  percentage 
of  the  Americans  in  the  Philippines,  and  affect  the  moral  tone  not 
only  of  Manila,  but  the  whole  archipelago. 

"When  the  small  colony  of  the  right  kind  of  Americans  in  Manila 
becomes  large  enough  to  color  and  tone  Manila  society,  then  that 
society  may  cease  to  be  the  lamentable  farce  that  it  is  now,  and  may 
offer  inducements  to  a  longer  residence  in  Manila  than  is  now 
comfortable  for  those  who  hold  the  best  ideals  of  civihzed  society." 

When  we  are  told  that  the  Americans  in  the  islands  oppose 
independence,  we  can  judge  by  this  description  how  much  im- 
portance to  give  their  testimony. 

But,  if  you  want  further  testimony,  let  the  American  residents 
themselves  speak.  I  quote  from  speeches  made  at  a  mass  meeting 
of  Americans  held  in  Manila  after  the  Filipinos  had  celebrated 
the  result  of  an  election  for  the  Assembly  by  a  procession  in  which 
Filipino  flags  as  well  as  American  were  carried. 

One  speaker  expressed  his  belief  that  "our  government  has  been 
weak  and  vacillating  in  its  policy  as  to  these  Islands,"  adding: 

"Now  I  believe  in  'benevolent  assimilation'  [which  quotation 
was  received  with  laughter].  I  believe  in  it  so  strongly  that  I 
would,  if  necessary,  pin  it  to  these  Islands  with  the  bayonet." 

From  another  speech  I  quote  these  extracts: 

"We  may  cover  it  up,  put  it  out  as  smoothly  and  nicely  as  we 
can  and  make  it  as  easy  as  possible,  but  the  fact  remains  we 
came  as  an  armed  force  and  remained  as  conquerors." 


32 

"A  little  independence — a  very  little — is  sometimes  good  for 
a  people,  and  too  much  is  very  bad." 

Strange  words  from  an  American.  Then  comes  this  ambitious 
claim : 

"They  did  not  realize  that  we,  who  are  here  to-night,  are  the 
Government,  and  that  that  Government  could  not  have  been 
here  without  us,  and  cannot  stay  here  without  us.  ...  I  believe 
in  peace  and  harmony.  I  always  did,  and  when  I  had  a  batta- 
lion of  volunteers  behind  me  I  felt  awful  peaceful.  ...  I  believe 
that  if  we  could  put  about  one  hundred  thousand  American 
troops  over  here  it  would  be  very  peaceful  [laughter],  exceed- 
ingly so;  and  you  would  not  see  any  more  Katipunan  banners, 
eight  or  ten  feet  long,  with  their  designs  emblazoned  in  silk, 
going  along  the  streets  with  a  little  six-cent  American  flag  carried 
underneath  it.     It  would  be  too  peaceful  for  that." 

Some  ten  years  ago  Mr.  Taft  said  in  words  which  have  been  quoted 
that,  unless  the  character  and  attitude  of  the  Americans  in  the 
islands  changed  for  the  better,  he  "should  be  very  much  discour- 
aged" about  the  success  of  our  experiment  in  the  islands.  It  evi- 
dently has  not  and  will  not  change,  and  the  reasons  are  suggested 
by  an  ardent  supporter  of  Mr.  Taft's  policy.  Professor  Hart, 
of  Harvard  College,  ^vriting  from  the  islands,  who  said  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1909: 

"If  the  hope  of  making  big  money  in  the  Western  Pacific  was 
the  thing  that  turned  the  scale  in  favor  of  ratifying  the  treaty 
in  1899,  the  United  States  was  indeed  buncoed,  for  the  islands, 
though  reasonably  rich  by  nature,  are  no  foundation  of  wealth 
either  for  the  natives  or  the  newcomers.  .  .  .  The  really  fertile 
area  of  level  land  in  the  islands  is  probably  not  larger  than  the 
State  of  Alabama  and  not  so  valuable.  .  .  .  Whatever  wealth 
there  is  in  the  Philippines  can  be  had  only  by  working  for  it,  or 
by  working  still  harder  in  the  effort  to  get  the  yellow  man  to  work 
for  the  white  man.  ...  It  is  hopeless  to  look  for  immigration 
into  the  PhiUppines  by  any  considerable  number  of  American 
farmers  or  mechanics,"  and  "we  must  expect  that  for  many 
years  to  come  few  Americans  will  go  out  to  settle  in  the  Philip- 
pines except  government  officials,  including  the  army  and  navy, 
missionaries,  and  people  of  the  missionary  spirit,  foremen  and 
superintendents  and  business  men  who  have  something  to  invest. 
.  .  .  The  race  feeling  seems  due  to  the  inexorable  fact  that  the  few 
foreigners  are  in  power,  and  the  many  and  the  native  must  obey. 


33 

...  It  has  been  hoped  that  the  PhiUppine  Assembly,  by  exer- 
cising part  of  the  governmental  authority  through  elected  repre- 
sentatives, would  heal  the  breach;  that  a  sizable  majority  would 
be  found  in  that  body  which  would  accept  the  American  govern- 
ment as  a  fixture,  but  hardly  a  member  stands  for  the  things  that 
are.  .  .  .  There  is  a  fundamental  difficulty  here  upon  which  time 
has  Uttle  effect ;  the  possession  of  some  power  seems  to  the  Fili- 
pino— as  it  did  to  our  ancestors  in  1776 — a  reason  for  claiming 


Mr.  Hart,  moreover,  tells  us  that 

*Hhe  Negro  problem  here  is  on  the  whole  an  easier  one  than 
the  Philippine,"  and  adds:  "Here  is  the  final  fallacy  of  the  whole 
situation.  Americans  are  trying  with  the  best  will  in  the  world  to 
prove  to  the  FiHpinos  that  the  political  morals  which  fit  America 
do  not  fit  those  parts  of  the  outlying  world  which  have  become 
incorporated  with  America.  There  is  no  logic,  and  no  benefit  to 
those  governed  which  makes  self-government  the  only  conceiv- 
able thing  on  the  continent  of  America,  and  a  dangerous  thing 
in  the  islands  of  the  Pacific." 


This  certainly  betrays  no  enthusiasm  for  the  Philippine  ad- 
venture. 

Let  me  cite  another  very  recent  witness.  Dr.  George  A.  Dorsey, 
who  writes  from  the  islands  thus: 

''What  a  farce  we  are  over  here,  anyway!  Our  government 
of  the  islands  is  worthy  of,  we  will  say,  Nevada.  We  do  not 
know  what  we  are  trying  to  do,  and  we  do  not  know  how  to  do 
it;  especially  is  our  government  here  not  a  government  of  ex- 
perts. There  are  some  good  men,  but  they  are  in  a  minority, 
and  they  owe  their  appointment  not  to  eternal  fitness  but  to  for- 
tuitous circumstances.  Our  improvements  are  not  commen- 
surate with  the  neglect,  decay,  and  indifference  which  are  to 
be  seen  on  every  hand,  and  the  Filipinos  despise  us  and  have 
no  respect  for  us. 

''The  wild  tribes  are  interesting,  and  the  mountains  and  valleys 
of  the  interior  are  glorious,  but  Manila  and  the  whole  fringe  of 
so-called  Christian  coast  is  enough  to  make  one  sick.  The  old 
flag  gains  no  added  lustre  in  flying  aloft  over  the  Philippine 
Islands.  We  have  introduced  slovenliness  and  decay,  and  we 
neither  foster  native  industries  nor  encourage  foreign  capital. 
And  each  day  increases  the  bitterness  between  the  white  and 
the  brown;  and  the  newspapers  in  Manila,  instead  of  devoting 
themselves  to  the  legitimate  sphere  of  a  newspaper,  carry  on  a 


34 

perpetual  cat  and  dog  fight,  adding  to  the  bitterness  of  the  racial 
hatred.  .  .  . 

''Why  cannot  we  let  the  natives  alone?  They  are  the  best 
agriculturists  in  the  world;  they  build  far  better  houses  than 
the  Christians,  and  hve  a  much  saner,  cleaner,  more  wholesome 
life.  What  in  the  name  of  Abraham  Lincoln  do  they  want  with 
a  few  stale  crumbs  of  our  educational  system? 

"But  what  is  the  use?  On  this  boat  is  one,  just  only  one,  other 
white  passenger.  He  has  been  in  the  civil  service  in  Manila  for 
four  years;  he  is  leaving  a  $2,200  job  to  take  one  in  Canton  for 
$1,500.     He  says  '  Manila  is  no  place  for  a  white  man.' " 


WHAT   SORT   OF    GOVERNMENT   HAVE   WE   REALLY 
GIVEN  THE  FILIPINOS? 

A  few  quotations  from  reliable  sources  may  throw  some  light  on 
the  subject.  On  July  4,  1902,  peace  was  declared  officially  to 
have  been  restored  and  civil  government  was  established.  Let 
us  go  on  chronologically.  During  the  Christmas  season  of  1901, 
six  months  before  the  restoration  of  peace.  General  Bell  reported 
as  to  his  operations  thus: 

"I  am  now  assembling  in  the  neighborhood  of  2,500  men  who 
will  be  used  in  columns  of  about  fifty  men  each.  I  take  so  large 
a  command  for  the  purpose  of  thoroughly  searching  each  ravine, 
valley,  and  mountain  peak  for  insurgents  and  for  food,  expecting 
to  destroy  everything  I  find  outside  of  towns.  All  able-bodied 
men  will  be  killed  or  captured.  Old  men,  women,  and  children 
will  be  sent  to  towns.  This  movement  begins  January  1,  by  which 
time  I  hope  to  have  nearly  all  the  food  supply  in  the  towns.  These 
people  need  a  thrashing,  to  teach  them  some  good  common  sense; 
and  they  should  have  it  for  the  good  of  all  concerned." 

This  was  war;  but  what  followed?  In  the  year  1902  recon- 
centration  was  used  to  suppress  insurrection  in  Laguna  and 
Batangas.  It  then  affected  not  less  than  100,000  people  in 
camps  holding  from  8,000  to  14,000  people  each,  according 
to  the  official  report  of  Colonel  Wagner.  In  1903,  when  every 
Filipino  is  said  to  have  had  all  the  civil  rights  secured  to  an 
American  citizen  by  the  Bill  of  Rights  save  the  right  to  bear 
arms  and  to  trial  by  jury,  300,000  persons  were  driven  from  their 
homes  into  reconcentration  camps  in  Albay,  where  very  large 


35 

areas  were  entirely  denuded  of  population.  15,000  people  in 
Tayabas  suffered  a  like  fate.  In  1904  some  20,000  people  in 
Samar  and  16,000  in  Cavite,  close  to  the  walls  of  Manila,  were 
dealt  with  in  like  manner.  In  1905  we  heard  from  Bakoor  that 
*4ts  unfortunate  reconcentrated  people,  the  inhabitants  of  the  dis- 
tricts of  Ligas  and  St.  Nicholas,  a  pleasant  land  situated  by  the 
seaside,  are  subjected  to  vigorous  surveillance,  not  allowed  to 
walk  abroad  with  impunity,  obliged  to  snatch  their  sleep  in 
motley  heaps  of  men,  women  and  children,  exposed  by  night  and 
day  to  the  elements"  and  every  hardship  which  the  terrible  word 
''reconcent ration"  implies.  Like  reports  came  from  Batangas, 
but  these  found  no  place  in  the  despatches  from  the  Philippine 
Islands.     The  facts  were  given  in  the  Manila  press. 

The  following  order  was  issued  May  24,  1906,  by  Captain 
Walter  A.  Smith,  senior  inspector  of  the  constabulary  of  Negros, 
to  the  commanding  officer  of  a  squad  consisting  of  fifteen  or 
twenty  men  detailed  to  capture  an  outlaw  named  Isio: 

''All  country  around  Masasoh,  Manjuija,  Magtacay  and  other 
sitios  in  that  locality  must  be  covered  and  everything  destroyed 
by  cutting  down  or  by  fire.  ...  All  people  caught  in  these  places 
should  be  turned  over  to  Lieutenant  Mohler  for  work.  .  .  .  Have 
your  men  take  lots  of  ammunition  and  kill  everything  that  runs 
from  the  Constabulary  except  women  and  children." 

Yet  Mr.  Taft  about  that  time  said  at  Grand  Rapids  that  the 
Fihpinos 

''are  now  enjoying  the  right  to  life,  liberty  and  property  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness  and  freedom  from  deprivation  of  any  of 
those  rights,  except  by  due  process  of  law." 

Does  Mr.  Taft,  as  an  eminent  lawyer,  assert  that  the  men 
whose  property  is  destroyed  and  whose  lives  are  taken  under 
such  an  order  as  this  lose  them  by  "due  process  of  law"? 

This  last  order  was  issued  in  time  of  peace,  and  is  an  illustra- 
tion of  our  tenderness  in  dealing  with  a  weaker  people.  This 
order  was  printed  in  the  Manila  Opinion,  an  American  newspaper, 
on  December  7,  1907.  Has  the  officer  who  gave  that  order  been 
punished?  Could  Aguinaldo's  government  have  been  more 
arbitrary? 


36 

The  massacre  of  Mt.  Da  jo  in  March,  1906,  where  admittedly 
600  men,  women,  and  children,  and,  as  I  am  informed,  many  more 
were  slaughtered,  was  military,  but  hardly  ''due  process  of  law.'' 

My  figures  are  unofficial  because  no  official  figures  are  fur- 
nished. When  the  British  in  time  of  war  applied  reconcentra- 
tion  in  South  Africa,  a  blue  book  issued  every  month  informed 
the  British  people  how  many  camps  were  established,  where  they 
were,  how  many  men,  women,  and  children  were  in  each,  and 
what  the  mortality  had  been  in  each  camp  and  in  each  class 
during  the  month.  No  similar  record  exists,  as  I  am  credibly 
informed  by  the  Insular  Bureau,  of  what  we  have  done  in  the 
Philippines,  but,  if  it  exists  anywhere,  it  has  never  been  disclosed 
to  the  American  people.  Our  leaders  did  not  dare  to  tell  us  the 
truth. 

And  they  had  good  reason  to  fear.  The  truth  was  fatal  to 
their  cause.  Whiat  is  reconcentration?  When  Spain  in  the 
midst  of  war  resorted  to  it.  President  McKinley  said,  ''It  was 
not  civilized  warfare,"  but  "a  new  and  inhuman  phase  happily 
unprecedented  in  the  modern  history  of  civihzed  Christian 
people."  By  a  curious  coincidence  he  was  speaking  of  its  appli- 
cation to  300,000  people,  just  the  number  who  suffered  by  it  in 
Albay,  and  he  concluded:  "It  was  extermination.  The  only 
peace  it  could  beget  was  that  of  the  wilderness  and  the  grave," — 
a  "wilderness"  such  as  General  Smith  sought  to  make  of  Samar. 
The  people  of  the  United  States  were  roused  to  interfere,  and 
made  war  upon  Spain,  and,  while  President  McKinley  hesitated 
to  adopt  this  remedy  for  cruelties  perpetrated  by  a  Spanish 
commander,  Theodore  Roosevelt  said,  as  we  are  told: 

"The  steps  of  the  White  House  are  slippery  with  the  blood  of 
the  reconcentrados." 

If  the  blood  of  those  whom  Spain  killed  was  on  our  doorsteps,  on 
whom  rests  the  guilt  for  the  innocent  lives  that  were  lost  by  the 
same  methods  in  the  Philippines? 

After  his  visit  to  the  islands  Mr.  Leroy,  already  quoted,  wrote 
as  follows: 

"Of  all  the  departments  of  government  wherein  race  prejudice 
is  exhibited  toward  the  Filipinos  and  the  Americans  employed 


37 

are  of  the  least  cultured  and  most  intolerant  sort,  the  constab- 
ulary is  by  far  the  worst.  Many  non-commissioned  officers 
of  the  regular  army,  of  scant  education,  poor  manners  and  a 
contempt  for  the  natives  imbibed  during  their  service  in  the  army, 
have  been  made  officers  of  the  Phihppine  constabulary.  Too  often 
the  so-called  Filipino  officials  of  the  corps  are  men  of  so  large  a 
share  of  Spanish  blood,  former  non-commissioned  officers  in 
the  Spanish  insular  army  or  civil  guard,  that  they  are  decidedly 
hostile  to  the  Fihpinos  and  are  hated  by  the  people,  being  iden- 
tified with  the  Spanish  side  of  internal  strife  in  the  past.  The 
secret  pohce,  again,  is  largely  recruited  from  men  who  turned 
informers  in  behalf  first  of  Spain  and  then  of  the  United  States, 
spies  upon  their  own  people;  this  fact  is  in  itself  enough  to  dis- 
qualify them  for  service  under  a  new  civil  government,  but  they 
are  in  addition,  in  a  very  considerable  proportion  of  cases,  dis- 
reputable characters  of  the  worst  sort,  who  keep  out  of  jail  only 
by  serving  the  government.  Many  of  the  soldiers  of  the  con- 
stabulary rank  and  file  are  of  the  same  class  of  informers,  spies 
and  other  former  servants  of  the  American  military  government 
who  have  frequently  their  private  vengeances  to  pay,  and  do 
not  scruple  to  do  so  under  the  cover  of  the  terror  which  their 
imiform  inspires.  Worse  yet,  the  hands  of  certain  of  the  Fifipino 
constabulary  subordinates  do  not  seem  to  be  clean  of  torture  in 
getting  and  arraying  witnesses  for  the  government  in  this  case. 
The  charges,  indeed,  go  to  the  extreme  of  instancing  one  case 
of  murder  committed  by  a  file  of  soldiers  after  seizing  a  humble 
Filipino  who  refused  to  testify  to  what  he  was  ordered  to  say,  as 
is  so  often  the  case  with  witnesses  on  both  sides  of  a  trial  in  the 
Philippines.'' 

Mr.  Taft  spoke  thus  of  executive  interference  with  the  courts, 
in  a  speech  at  Manila: 

"It  is  said  that  the  trials  in  the  courts  of  first  instance  are  too 
much  a  matter  of  executive  regulation,  and  that  the  defendants 
do  not  receive  justice,"  .  .  .  and  proceeds,  "Speaking  of  my 
personal  and  intimate  acquaintance  derived  from  close  investiga- 
tion, I  am  able  to  say  that  I  think  no  case  can  be  successfully 
established  in  which  there  was  an  undue  interference  on  the  part 
to  the  executive." 

This  is  a  careful  statement  in  a  careful  speech.  No  case 
can  be  proved  of  "undue  interference."  Who  shall  decide  what 
is  "undue  interference"?  Here  is  no  denial  that  there  was 
interference,  only  that  no  interference  "undue"  in  Mr.  Taft's 


38 

opinion  can  "be  established/'  Is  this  merely  from  lack  of 
evidence? 

He  proceeded, 

"that  there  is  under  the  present  system  an  opportunity  for  such 
interference  cannot,  I  think,  be  denied,"  and  so  great  is  the  danger 
that  he  declared  himself  "strongly  in  favor"  of  giving  the  Presi- 
dent alone  the  power  to  remove  judges  and  then  only  for  cause, 
and  of  giving  to  the  court  itself  the  power  of  assigning  judges  to 
particular  districts. 

The  visiting  Congressmen  of  the  Taft  party  heard  statements 
like  these  about  the  conditions  then  existing.  A  sugar  planter 
of  Iloilo  said: 

"Our  situation  at  the  present  time  is,  therefore,  a  very  de- 
plorable one.  Seven  years  of  calamities,  with  a  war  and  plagues, 
failures  of  crops,  etc.,  have  reduced  us  to  a  state  of  misery  to  such 
an  extent  that  in  many  plantations  of  Negros  and  Panay  the  cul- 
tivation of  sugar  has  been  entirely  abandoned.  Owing  to  the 
low  price  secured  by  the  farmer  for  his  product  during  the  past 
few  years,  a  great  many  planters  have  been  unable  to  meet  their 
obligations  and  to-day  are  on  the  eve  of  losing  their  property. 
They  are  unable  to  get  credit  any  longer.  There  are  planters, 
both  in  the  Island  of  Panay  and  in  that  of  Negros,  who,  having 
the  deeds  of  their  property  in  their  hands,  apply  to  the  money 
lenders  and  to  the  bankers  for  a  loan,  offering  to  secure  the 
loan  by  mortgaging  their  entire  property,  and  are  unable  to  secure 
even  sufficient  money  to  attend  to  their  most  pressing  personal 
wants." 

A  tobacco  planter  said : 

"  There  has  never  been  as  severe  a  crisis  in  the  industry  in  the 
Philippine  Islands  as  that  which  at  present  prevails.  The  Phil- 
ippine tobacco  industry  in  cigars  has  lost  the  markets  of  England, 
India  and  AustraUa  on  account  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  that 
article,  and  I  wish  to  give  these  figures  to  prove  my  assertion. 
These  figures  refer  to  the  exportation  of  manufactured  tobacco. 
In  the  year  1901  it  was  1,559,780  kilograms;  in  1902,  1,083,069; 
in  1903,  1,235,257;  in  1904,  705,827;  and  for  the  first  six  months 
of  the  year  1905,  149,828;  and  the  proof  of  the  decadence  of  the 
industry  is  that  at  the  present  day  we  have  but  ten  per  cent,  of 
the  number  of  women  formerly  employed  in  our  factories  and 
but  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  number  of  men." 


39 

Mr.  Macleod,  in  behalf  of  the  Manila  Chamber  of  Commerce 
and  the  Ship  Owners  Association,  read  the  report  of  a  committee, 
of  which  he  was  one.  Its  character  is  indicated  by  the  following 
passages: 

"The  country,  generally  speaking,  is  in  a  state  of  financial 
collapse.  The  agriculturists  and  merchants  are  passing  through 
the  worst  crisis  ever  known  in  the  annals  of  Philippine  history.  A 
series  of  calamities  had  contributed  to  bring  the  country  to  this 
deplorable  state." 

''Consequent  on  this  ruined  state,  the  farmers  have  had  to 
borrow  money  to  live  on,  money  to  plant  their  crops  and  culti- 
vate their  lands,  and  money  to  bring  their  harvests  to  market, 
so  that  almost  the  entire  agricultural  land  throughout  the  Islands 
is  mortgaged  for  more  than  its  full  value.  Where  the  money  has 
been  advanced  by  the  merchant  or  middleman  who  buys  the  prod- 
uce the  rate  of  interest  has  been  eight  per  cent.,  which  is  consid- 
ered moderate  for  this  country,  but  where  the  farmer  has  had  to 
have  recourse  to  other  sources,  the  usurer  has  taken  advantage 
to  charge  anything  from  one  to  three  per  cent,  per  month,  and 
the  farmer  has  year  by  year  sunk  deeper  into  the  mire. 

"As  a  natural  sequence  to  the  ruined  state  of  the  farmers,  the 
merchants  and  middlemen  who  acted  as  bankers  have  lost  many 
millions  by  bad  debts,  and  have  still  many  millions  outstanding 
of  doubtful  recovery.  This  has  naturally  turned  all  their  paper 
profits  into  real  and  actual  losses,  so  that,  generally  speaking,  the 
commercial  firms  are  a  great  deal  worse  off  to-day  than  they  w^re 
five  years  ago. 

"  Second.  Following  on  conditions  such  as  above  described,  the 
country  was  by  no  means  prepared  to  meet  a  tax  on  land  already 
burdened  by  debt.  The  people,  therefore,  naturally  felt  very 
sore  when  the  territorial  tax  was  imposed,  to  pay  which  they  had 
in  most  cases  to  raise  money  at  usurious  rates  of  interest.  There 
is  a  provision  in  the  law  governing  this  tax  whereby  the  Govern- 
ment may  order  the  sale  of  the  land  for  overdue  taxes,  and  we 
are  under  the  belief  that  this  has  happened  in  several  cases  where 
the  owners  were  unable  to  raise  the  money.  We  are  strongly 
of  the  opinion  that  the  imposition  of  this  tax  and  mode  of  proce- 
dure has  caused  and  is  causing  much  of  the  distress  now  prevalent 
throughout  the  Islands." 

"We  beg  to  draw  attention  to  the  necessity  of  revising  the  pres- 
ent internal  revenue  law.  The  tax  of  one  third  of  one  per  cent, 
on  sales  falls  unequally,  and  in  the  case  of  sales  of  native  produce 
there  is  a  clear  discrimination  against  the  middleman,  who  is  one 
of  the  most  useful  and  necessary  members  of  the  mercantile  com- 
munity in  his  capacity  of  banker  and  agent  for  the  producer. 


40 

"  We  consider  the  present  taxation  to  be  excessive  for  the  produc- 
ing power  of  the  Islands.  The  amount  raised  for  insular  pur- 
poses alone  is  estimated  at  23,000,000  pesos  for  the  present  fiscal 
year.  This  does  not  include  municipal  and  other  taxes  which  we 
have  not  been  able  to  estimate. 

"  Mr.  MACLEOD  (interrupting  the  reading  of  the  report).  While 
we  all  appreciate  the  great  improvements  that  are  going  to  be 
brought  about  and  have  been  brought  about  by  the  American 
government,  and  the  policy  they  have  been  carrying  out,  the 
increase  in  the  budget  from  what  it  was  in  Spanish  times — from 
13,000,000  pesos  to  approximately  30,000,000  pesos — has  been 
too  high;  the  country  is  not  able  to  support  it. 

'^  Senator  Foster.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  aggregate  of 
taxation  has  raised  from  13,000,000  pesos  to  approximately 
30,000,000  pesos? 

''Mr.  MACLEOD.  Yes;  the  Spanish  budget  of  1894-95,  which 
was  the  highest  ever  known  in  normal  times,  was  13,579,900  pesos. 

''  Representative  Hepburn.  Did  that  include  all  of  the  exactions 
levied  by  the  Spanish  Government  upon  the  people? 

"Mr.  MACLEOD.     Yes;  I  will  give  you  a  fist  of  them." 

Of  the  internal  revenue  tax  Professor  Paul  S.  Reinsch  said: 

''  Outside  of  Italy  it  would  be  hard  to  find  a  system  of  taxation 
that  so  efficiently  scours  the  whole  field  of  business.  The  mer- 
chants and  professional  men  of  a  country  like  the  United  States 
would  look  upon  it  as  a  most  unbearable  burden." 

The  practical  effect  of  our  policy  may  be  judged  from  these 
statistics  which  are  taken  from  a  letter  addressed  by  representa- 
tives of  Batangas  to  Secretary  Taft  on  August  26,  1905.  They 
show  what  had  been  going  on  in  the  municipality  of  Balayan,  in 
the  province  of  Batangas. 

In  1896  the  number  of  inhabitants  in  that  municipality  was 
41,308.  In  1905  it  was  13,924.  The  area  of  cultivated  land, 
in  hectares,  was  19,500  in  1896,  and  1,700  in  1905, — not  ten  per 
cent.  Products:  rice,  39,020  cavanes  in  1896  and  12,500  ca- 
vanes  in  1900;  sugar,  520,000  picos  in  1896,  now  12,300  picos; 
maize,  110,000  cavanes  in  1896,  now  10,000  cavanes;  the  oxen 
then  were  10,000,  now  427;  the  cows  then  were  3,650,  now  80; 
carabaos,  oxen,  4,110  in  1896,  now  433;  carabaos,  cows,  1,350 
in  1896,  now  92;  there  were  11,000  hogs  then,  there  are  now 
2,800;  there  were  96,000  hens,  there  are  now  5,000.  Consider 
what  a  story  these  figures  tell. 


41 

Yet  Mr.  Taft  in  a  speech  at  Manila  on  August  8,  as  reported  in  a 
despatch  published  in  the  Boston  Transcript,  alluding  to  the  taxes, 
said  that  ''people  refusing  just  taxation  were  unfitted  for  self- 
government."  Had  Mr.  Taft  forgotten  the  causes  of  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution,  or  did  he  think  that  the  question  whether  a  tax 
is  just  is  settled  by  the  opinion  of  the  men  who  impose  it? 

It  may  be  said  that  this  was  some  nine  years  ago.  How  is  it 
now?  That  we  have  strayed  very  far  from  the  principles  on 
which  our  government  rests  may  be  gathered  from  Governor 
Forbes's  words  in  describing  the  manner  in  which  some  Filipinos 
are  governed.  I  quote  from  an  article  written  for  the  Harvard 
Graduates^  Magazine  for  December,  1911,  in  which  he  points  out 
to  what  careers  Harvard  men  may  aspire,  and  describes  ''Gallman, 
who  rules  with  a  rod  of  iron  120,000  savages,  whom  nobody  before 
has  ever  been  able  to  deal  with  or  bring  under  control,  whose 
least  word.ris  now  their  law,"  and  Governor  Pack,  who  rules 
350,000  people,  described  as  "industrious,  honest,  faithful  and 
extremely  dirty,"  as  ''gradually  persuading  by  reason  and  by 
force,  if  necessary,  the  savages  to  desist  from  their  warfare  and 
reprisals  and  to  engage  in  the  arts  of  peace." 

Despotic  power,  "rods  of  iron,"  the  government  by  one  man 
of  thousands,  nay,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  his  fellow-men, 
have  no  place  under  our  flag.  No  man  in  the  United  States 
would  intrust  another  with  absolute  power  over  him.  By  what 
right  do  we  give  that  power  to  one  man  over  thousands  of  others ! 

I  might  allude  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Friar  Lands  were 
sold  to  American  exploiters  and  to  fraudulent  corporations  in 
evident  disregard  of  law. 

There  is,  however,  another  question  of  very  great  importance, 
to  state  which  I  shall  borrow  freely  from  the  speech  of  Mr.  Jones 
already  referred  to : 

"The  legislature  since  1907  has  consisted  of  two  houses,  this 
appointive  commission,  which  is  known  as  the  upper  house,  and 
an  elective  assembly.  This  body  legislates  for  the  civilized, 
Christianized  people,  but  the  commission,  under  the  organic 
act,  is  the  sole  legislative  body  for  the  non-Christian  and  uncivilized 
tribes,  and  exercises  supreme  and  exclusive  legislative  authority 
over  all  their  territory,  their  lives,  their  property,  and  their  public 
revenues.  Let  us  see  what  has  been  the  practical  operation — 
some  of  the  actual,  tangible  results — of  this  anomalous  condition 


42 

of  affairs.  In  the  first  place,  no  measure  originating  in  the  as- 
sembly can  become  a  law  unless  it  meets  the  approval  of  the  com- 
mission, and,  of  course,  the  reverse  of  this  proposition  is  also  true. 
Realizing  that  disagreements  would  inevitably  arise  between  the 
commission  and  the  assembly,  and  that  the  annual  appropria- 
tion bills  for  the  support  of  the  government  might  thus  fail  of 
passage,  the  organic  act  provides  that  in  such  event  'an  amount 
equal  to  the  sums  appropriated  in  the  last  appropriation  bills 
for  such  purposes  shall  be  deemed  to  be  appropriated,  and  until 
the  legislature  shall  act  in  such  behalf  the  treasurer  may,  with 
the  advice  of  the  governor,  make  the  payments  necessary  for  the 
purposes  aforesaid.'  The  purpose  of  this  law  is,  as  has  been  said 
by  another,  to  provide  for  the  contingency  of  an  honest  difference 
of  opinion  between  these  two  houses  as  well  as  for  unreasonable 
or  factious  attempts  on  the  part  of  either  house  to  embarrass 
the  government  by  withholding  the  supplies  necessary  for  its 
existence. 

THE   SUPPLY   BILLS. 

''Twice  has  the  legislature  failed  to  pass  these  supply  bills. 
One  of  the  causes  for  the  disagreement  which  led  to  the  deadlock 
between  the  two  branches  of  the  legislature  and  which  resulted 
in  these  failures  to  pass  appropriation  bills  was  that  the  assem- 
bly insisted  that  the  salaries  of  the  members  of  the  commission 
who  were  also  heads  of  executive  departments  should  be  so  re- 
duced as  to  make  them  more  nearly  correspond  to  those  received 
by  members  of  the  American  Cabinet.  But  the  chief  cause  of  dis- 
agreement was  the  insistence  of  the  commission  upon  the  right 
which  it  claimed  to  appropriate  large  sums  of  money  out  of  the 
public  revenues  of  the  insular  treasury,  to  be  expended  upon  what 
is  known  as  the  Benguet  Road,  without  the  concurrence  and  de- 
spite the  earnest  opposition  of  the  other  co-ordinate  branch  of 
the  legislature. 

BENGUET   ROAD. 

"The  Benguet  Road  is  a  highway  less  than  20  miles  in  length, 
built  at  a  cost  of  several  millions  of  dollars  in  gold  through  a 
mountain  gorge  to  a  health  resort  or  residential  park,  called 
Baguio,  to  which  place,  at  great  expense,  the  seat  of  government 
is  transferred  from  Manila  for  several  months  each  year,  and  where 
American  officials  have  handsome  homes,  clubhouses,  polo  grounds, 
and  other  sources  of  recreation  and  amusement.  The  Filipinos 
have  from  the  beginning  been  violently  opposed  to  these  vast 
and  absolutely  inexcusable  expenditures.  Not  only  has  it  cost 
millions  to  build  this  automobile  road  through  rugged  mountains, 
a  highway  that  is  used  solely  for  purposes  of  recreation  and  pleas- 
ure, but  the  cost  of  its  upkeep  is  perhaps  not  less  than  $100,000 


43 

a  year,  and  in  times  of  great  freshets  it  has  been  necessary  to  re- 
build entire  sections  at  an  enormous  cost.  Nothing  that  o.ur 
Government  has  done  in  the  Phihppine  Islands  has  aroused  more 
feeling  and  created  more  resentment  on  the  part  of  the  helpless 
Filipinos  of  every  station  in  life  than  this  wanton  and  indefensible 
disregard  of  their  wishes  and  interests.  [Applause.]  This  one 
act  of  the  Philippine  Commission  has  greatly  shaken,  if  not  de- 
stroyed, the  confidence  of  the  Filipino  people  in  the  American 
sense  of  justice  and  fair  dealing.  It  has  removed  every  vestige 
of  any  sentiment  which  may  have  existed  in  favor  of  American 
annexation. 

"The  pretext  for  the  commission's  action  was  that  the  Ben- 
guet  Road  traversed  a  part  of  a  non-Christian  Province,  and  that 
inasmuch  as  the  commission  exercised  exclusive  legislative  func- 
tions over  non-Christian  territory  it  was  empowered  to  expend 
any  amount  of  the  public  funds  it  might  desire  in  the  construction 
and  maintenance  of  that  road,  and  that  without  either  the  con- 
currence or  approval  of  the  assembly.  The  members  of  the  as- 
sembly claimed,  on  the  other  hand,  and  with  reason,  that  the  com- 
mission was  only  empowered  to  expend  the  public  money  in  non- 
Christian  Provinces  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  non-Christian 
and  uncivihzed  tribes  residing  therein,  and  that  it  was  a  flagrant 
violation  of  law  and  a  perversion  of  public  funds  to  use  them  in 
the  construction  of  an  enormously  expensive  automobile  road 
leading  to  a  mountain  summer  resort  maintained  exclusively  for 
the  benefit  of  themselves  and  other  rich  residents  of  Manila. 

''Acting  under  the  authority  of  the  provision  of  law  which  I  have 
just  quoted  the  Governor  General  has  ordered  the  appropriation 
of  a  sum  equal  to  the  total  appropriations  made  in  the  previous 
year  for  the  support  of  the  Government.  Having  thus  gotten 
into  his  hands  more  than  $12,000,000  in  1911  and  a  little  less 
than  $14,000,000  in  1912  of  the  pubUc  revenues  of  the  Filipino 
people  the  Governor  General  proceeded  to  expend  these  large  sums 
according  to  his  own  will,  and  as  in  h:s  sole  judgment  seemed  de- 
sirable, and  with  an  utter  disregard  for  the  purposes  for  which  the 
prior  legislative  appropriations  had  been  made." 

The  Commission  may  have  been  wrong  or  right  in  differing 
with  the  Assembly,  and  the  Governor  may  have  been  wrong  or 
right  in  his  claim  of  power,  though  I  think  him  wrong,  but  it 
is  obvious  that,  if  he  is  right,  it  is  always  in  the  power  of  the 
Commission,  by  refusing  to  concur  with  the  Assembly,  to  obtain 
the  absolute  control  of  the  Philippine  treasury  and  to  spend  the 
money  raised  by  taxation  from  the  Filipinos  without  consulting 
their  representatives.     It  is  strange  that  such   doctrines   should 


44 

prevail  under  the  American  flag,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  men 
thus  subjected  to  taxation  without  representation  should  desire 
their  independence.  This  claim  of  right  and  the  approval  .of 
arbitrary  government  by  Gallman  show  how  the  views  of  even 
the  best  Americans  are  distorted  by  the  possession  of  power, 
and  confirm  Lincoln's  statement  that  "No  man  is  good  enough 
to  govern  another  without  that  other's  consent." 
Mr.  Jones  states: 

"It  is  asserted  by  a  former  member  of  the  commission  that  there 
were  as  many  as  123  new  offices  thus  created,  among  them  a 
secretary  to  the  Governor  General  at  an  annual  salary  of  $4,500, 
and  it  is  a  most  amazing  and  stupendous  fact  that  the  expendi- 
tures on  account  of  bureaus  and  offices  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1912,  were  $9,638,369.80,  as  against  $8,318,051.56  for 
the  next  preceding  year,  the  excess  being  a  mere  bagatelle  of 
$1,320,318.24  in  gold." 

The  facts  touching  the  new  offices  and  the  expenditure  should 
be  matters  of  record  in  the  War  Department,  and,  if  these  figures 
are  not  accurate,  they  can  be  corrected.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt, 
however,  that  our  government  of  the  islands  is  altogether  more 
expensive  than  the  wealth  of  the  people  warrants,  and  it  is  cer- 
tainly an  anomaly  that  the  heads  of  Philippine  departments  should 
be  paid  higher  salaries  than  the  Cabinet  Ministers  of  the  United 
States  receive.  Under  the  present  system  these  abuses  cannot 
be  corrected,  since  the  Commission  which  spends  the  money  con- 
trols the  legislature. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  have  given  the  Filipinos  good  schools, 
good  roads,  good  water,  better  sanitary  regulations,  and  the  like. 
Let  us  admit  that  we  have  spent  their  money  in  providing  these 
things.  What  we  have  contributed  is  advice  and  direction: 
the  Filipinos  have  contributed  the  money  and  the  labor.  Our 
officials  have  given  time  and  thought  to  their  problems,  and  have 
been  paid  for  both  by  the  Filipinos.  Is  it  necessary  to  make 
them  pay  the  enormous  expenses  of  our  administration  and  in 
addition  to  pay  out  of  our  own  treasury  forty  million  dollars  more 
or  less  for  maintaining  our  armed  force  in  the  islands,  in  order 
that  the  Filipinos  may  have  somewhat  better  schools,  roads,  and 
other  things  than  they  would  provide  themselves?  We  could 
give  advice  and  they  could  take  it  for  far  less  money. 


45 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  when  we  measure  what  we  have  done, 
that  Mr.  Taft  and  his  supporters  compare  present  conditions 
with  what  existed  in  1902,  when  the  PhiHppines  had  been  subjected 
to  nearly  four  years  of  desolating  warfare,  in  the  course  of  which 
roads,  bridges,  towns,  villages,  and  crops  of  every  kind  had  been 
laid  waste  and  the  flower  of  the  Filipino  youth  had  perished  in 
great  numbers.  We  have  been  replacing  what  we  destroyed.  If 
they  go  further  back,  they  compare  with  conditions  existing  under 
Spanish  rule,  which  had  driven  the  islanders  to  revolt.  It  would 
be  strange  indeed  if  there  had  not  been  a  marked  improvement 
since  those  days. 

The  Japanese,  who  were  to  our  thinking  just  as  backward  in 
1850  as  were  the  Filipinos  in  1898,  have  made  themselves  the  equals 
of  the  great  civihzed  nations  by  their  own  exertions.  They  have 
had  advice  and  instruction,  but  they  have  done  their  own  thinking 
and  have  improved  themselves  without  foreign  masters. 

If  our  government  was  withdrawn,  the  money  which  it  costs 
would  provide  schools  for  Filipino  children  who  now  have 
none,  and  would  pay  for  more  roads  and  wells.  Do  either  they 
or  we  under  the  present  system  get  an  equivalent  for  the  money 
that  we  spend,  if  we  consider  money  alone?  How  much  more  do 
we  pay  when  we  consider  the  surrender  of  our  principles  and  the 
loss  of  our  ideals? 

The  expense  of  our  present  policy  has  been  enormous  in  blood 
and  in  money.  It  is  enormous  still.  Is  it  worth  while  to  pay  so 
much  for  the  assumption  that  the  Filipino  of  all  men  on  earth  can- 
not be  trusted  to  do  for  himself  what  is  clearly  beneficial? 

Even  if  we  admit  that  every  dollar  of  Filipino  money  which  has 
been  spent  has  been  used  for  good  ends,  is  it  not  possible  that 
there  were  other  uses  equally  desirable  for  which  the  tax-payers 
would  have  preferred  to  spend  it?  Can  we  be  sure  that  there 
are  not,  and  should  not  those  who  pay  have  the  right  to  decide? 
It  was  for  this  right  that  we  fought  the  Revolution.  Were  we 
wrong?  It  would  be  an  excellent  thing  if  every  child  in  America 
were  taught  to  speak  French,  German,  and  Spanish.  He  who 
forced  them  to  learn  it  might  justly  say  he  had  done  a  good  work; 
but  should  we  welcome  a  combination  of  foreign  powers  who  took 
our  taxes  and  spent  them  for  this  beneficent  end,  leaving  other 
things  which  we  had  more  at  heart  to  suffer?     If  we  were  not  hold- 


46 

ing  the  Philippines,  the  money  spent  in  teaching  them  English 
might  have  been  put  into  something  which  they  need  more. 
They  only  need  English  in  order  to  communicate  with  us;  and, 
when  we  go,  the  need  goes  too. 


GOOD   GOVERNMENT   CANNOT  BE  ASSURED. 

Mr.  Taft's  policy  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  the 
American  people  are,  and  will  continue  to  be,  unselfish  in  their 
attitude  toward  the  Filipinos,  and  that  they  can  be  trusted  to 
keep  men  in  office  anxious  to  carry  out  this  unselfish  policy. 
Does  he  not  see  that  the  existing  situation  is  typical,  and, 
such  as  it  is,  it  always  will  be? 

There  will  always  be  a  body  of  resident  Americans,  anxious  to 
make  money  quick  and  looking  down  upon  the  natives,  despis- 
ing them,  misinterpreting  them,  and  trying  to  profit  at  their  ex- 
pense, just  as  the  resident  Americans  are  doing  now.  There  will 
always  be  governors  naturally  solicitous  for  the  success  of  their 
administration,  and  never  wilUng  to  disclose  the  facts  which 
might  lead  to  criticism  or  condemnation.  They  will  always  tell 
the  American  people,  as  Mr.  Taft  tells  us  now,  that  they  are 
"very  little  able  to  understand"  the  situation.  There  will  always 
be  the  busy,  good-natured  American  people,  knowing  little  and 
caring  less  about  their  distant  subjects,  taking,  as  the  Hartford 
C  our  ant  says,  less  ''interest  in  these  people"  than  "in  the  fading 
American  Indians,"  believing  what  Americans  say  because  they 
are  of  their  own  flesh  and  blood,  and  content  to  let  the  govern- 
ment manage  the  islands. 

The  American  people  will  no  more  resist  the  selfish  demands 
of  American  adventurers  or  protect  the  Filipino  against  them 
than  they  have  protected  the  Indians  against  spoliation,  or  than 
they  protected  the  Southern  States  from  Northern  "carpet- 
baggers." We  shall  deal  with  the  Fihpinos  as  the  English  have 
dealt  with  the  people  of  India,  who,  after  centuries  of  English 
rule,  are  not  so  near  independence  as  they  were  at  the  be- 
ginning. 

Let  us  assume,  however,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  that  we 
have  sent  out  exceptionally  able  and  wise  men,  that  they  have 


47 

devoted  themselves  to  the  work  of  helping  the  Filipinos  up,  and 
that  they  have  made  no  mistakes.  Surely,  I  cannot  concede 
more. 

Who  will  assure  us  that  those  conditions  shall  continue?  At 
a  time  when  in  our  own  country  we  are  insisting  that  our  own 
officials,  judges,  mayors,  governors,  our  own  fellow-citizens 
elected  by  us,  directly  exposed  to  pubhc  opinion,  criticised  in 
the  newspapers  and  magazines  and  on  the  stump,  cannot  be 
trusted  to  do  their  duty  well  during  the  brief  periods  for  which 
they  are  elected,  but  that  our  safety  requires  that  we  must 
have  the  power  to  recall  them  at  pleasure, — when  we  cannot 
trust  our  legislators  even  for  a  single  year,  but  must  have 
the  initiative  and  referendum, — when  the  representatives  of  the 
defeated  party  are  prophesying  all  sorts  of  evil  because  their 
opponents,  men  of  the  same  blood,  education,  and  ability  as  them- 
selves, are  placed  in  power  by  a  large  vote, — when  Americans  will 
not  trust  Americans  at  home,  how  can  we  confidently  assert  that 
they  can  safely  be  trusted  with  absolute  power  over  millions  of 
aliens,  whom  they  consider  inferior,  ten  thousand  miles  away, 
though  the  men  whom  they  govern  cannot  displace  them  by  their 
votes,  though  there  is  no  public  opinion  which  they  respect  to  con- 
trol them,  no  press  which  they  fear,  no  initiative,  no  referendum, 
no  recall?  Does  the  "graft"  which  disgraces  every  city  at  home 
disappear  in  the  Philippines?  Is  this  the  only  one  of  our  prac- 
tices that  changes  "under  a  tropic  sun"?  Does  human  experi- 
ence show  that  the  possession  of  absolute  power  over  others  makes 
man  better,  more  honest,  and  more  considerate? 

It  is  to  such  questions  as  this  that  our  forefathers  made  answer 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  when  they  announced  as  a 
self-evident  truth  that  no  government  should  derive  power  from 
any  source  but  the  consent  of  the  governed. 

Our  presence  there  is  not  even  a  protection  to  the  islanders 
against  foreign  aggression,  for  we  have  been  assured  by  the  head 
of  the  Insular  Bureau  that  in  case  of  a  war  with  any  foreign  power 
our  troops  and  ships  would  at  once  be  withdrawn  and  no  attempt 
would  be  made  to  defend  the  islands.  Our  troops  are  there,  and 
an  expense  of  some  $40,000,000  a  year  is  incurred,  to  keep  the 
Filipinos  down,  and  yet  our  opponents  assert  that  only  a  very  few 
among  them  desire  their  independence.     Is  this  expense  incurred 


48 

for  their  benefit?  Is  this  altruism?  If  so,  we  must  revise  our  views, 
and  rank  Russia  in  Poland,  Austria  in  Italy,  Spain  in  Mexico  and 
Peru,  high  among  human  altruists.  Were  they  not  all  striving 
to  introduce  the  blessings  of  civilization,  or  a  knowledge  of  the 
true  faith,  or  some  other  inestimable  good  among  their  victims? 


THE  PROPHECIES  OF  DISASTER. 

In  dealing  with  the  last  proposition  of  our  opponents,  we  enter 
the  realm  of  pure  prophecy,  and  they  see  the  downfall  of  all  that  is 
good  in  the  Philippine  Islands  in  case  of  our  withdrawal  as  clearly 
as  they  see  the  ruin  of  American  industry  in  case  the  tariff  is  re- 
duced. They  have  as  little  ground  for  their  gloomy  views  in  the 
first  case  as  in  the  last. 

The  testimony  of  Secretary  Stimson  as  to  Filipino  ability  has 
been  quoted.     It  will  bear  repetition: 

"Within  ten  years  they  have  been  given,  and  now  exercise,  the 
right  of  electing  all  of  their  municipal  officers.  Native  Filipinos 
also  now  compose  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  officials  and  employees 
of  the  provincial  governments  and  nearly  sixty  per  cent,  of  the 
officials  and  employees  of  the  central  Government.  They  have 
been  given  their  own  Assembly — the  lower  house  of  the  Phil- 
ippine Legislature,  which  is  composed  wholly  of  native  members, 
chosen  at  popular  election.  They  have  representation  on  the 
Philippine  Commission,  which  forms  the  upper  house.  They 
divide  with  Americans  the  direction  of  the  various  executive  de- 
partments. The  chief  justice  and  two  of  the  associate  justices 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  about  half  of  the  judges  of  the  higher 
courts  and  all  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  are  Filipinos.  There 
is  no  branch  of  the  Government,  executive,  legislative  or  judicial, 
where  Filipinos  are  not  represented  in  increasing  numbers  and 
where  their  influence  is  not  important." 

Mr.  Taft  thinks  this  progress  is  due  to  "constant  support 
and  supervision  at  every  step  by  Americans."  This  again  is 
assumption.  This  is  what  every  leader  is  apt  to  think  of  his 
pupil's  achievement,  but  the  pupil  does  not  always  think  so. 
Men  who  can  govern  all  their  towns  and  cities,  who  can  show 
such  capacity  for  legislation  as  the  Philippine  Assembly  has  shown, 
who  fill  such  high  judicial  offices,  and  furnish  all  the  inferior 


49 

judges,  "who  divide  with  Americans  the  direction  of  the  various 
executive  departments,"  have  not  shown  incapacity  for  self- 
government,  but  marked  capacity.  They  have  been  trusted  not 
over  few,  but  over  many  things,  and  no  one  charges  that  they 
have  been  found  wanting.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  trusted  more 
every  year.  The  proof  of  their  capacity  might  be  ampUfied  very 
greatly,  but  for  present  purposes  the  evidence  of  our  opponents 
is  enough.  We  want  no  better  testimony  than  that  of  Mr.  Stimson 
when  he  says, 

''There  is  no  parallel  to  the  material,  mental  and  moral  prog- 
ress shown  in  these  ten  years  of  civil  government  by  so  many 
millions  of  people,  held  for  centuries  in  ignorance  and  in  effect 
in  political  and  economic  bondage." 

This  is  strong  testimony  to  Filipino  capacity. 

But  Mr.  Taft  says  that  to  confer  independence  upon  "the 
Filipinos  now  is  to  subject  the  great  mass  of  their  people 
to  the  dominance  of  an  ohgarchical  and  probably  exploiting 
minority."  Where  are  they  now?  Under  the  domination  of 
five  oligarchs,  the  American  Commissioners,  who  control  the 
legislation  and  the  administration  of  the  islands.  This  oligarchy 
is  a  stubborn  fact,  the  Filipino  "oligarchical  minority"  a  fancy. 
We  know  the  first.  We  imagine  the  second.  That  there  will 
be  leaders  among  the  Filipinos  is  undoubtedly  true,  as  there 
are  leaders  and  "bosses"  here,  and  the  leaders,  like  all  leaders, 
will  be  a  minority  of  the  people,  but  they  will  be  men  of  the  same 
blood,  the  same  aspirations,  the  same  traditions  as  their  fol- 
lowers. The  leaders  and  the  followers  will  understand  each 
other,  and  have  common  sympathies  and  mutual  respect.  This 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  government  of  millions  of  people 
by  five  foreigners  who  look  down  upon  the  governed  as  members 
of  an  inferior  race,  and  upon  that  assumption  rest  their  right 
to  govern.  Such  a  relation  between  governor  and  governed  can- 
not fail  to  end  in  disaster.  As  Mr.  Curry,  of  New  Mexico,  who 
served  eight  years  in  the  Philippines  as  governor  of  three  prov- 
inces, chief  of  the  Manila  police,  and  in  other  capacities,  has  well 
said, 

"The  government  which  the  Filipinos  will  establish  may  not 
be  approved  by  the  ordinary  American  citizen,  but  it  will  suit 
the  Fihpinos  themselves." 


50 

And  that  is  the  final  test.  The  best  government  for  any 
people  is  the  government  which  they  like. 

Bishop  Brent  sneers  at  all  the  great  statesmen  of  the  country, 
from  those  who  framed  the  Declaration  of  Independence  through 
Lincoln  and  his  associates  to  Edmunds,  Reed,  Harrison,  Hoar, 
and  all  the  leaders  of  the  Democratic  party,  when  he  speaks  of 
the  "tone  of  infallibility  which  characterizes  the  utterances  of  those 
doughty  champions  of  the  Filipinos,  who  clothed  in  the  soft  rai- 
ment of  homespun  theories,  view  the  battle  from  afar,"  adding, 
*'I  have  no  solution  of  the  Philippine  problem  to  offer."  Yet 
with  a  tone  of  greater  infallibility  he  does  not  hesitate  to  assert 
dogmatically: 

"If  our  rule  were  removed  at  this  juncture,  at  any  rate  the 
Philippines  would  at  once  become  a  prey  to  the  strongest  of 
the  sectional  aggregations,  and  they  in  turn  would  ultimately 
be  devoured  by  intruders  from  outside  the  borders  of  the  Phil- 
ippines." * 

One  hardly  knows  which  to  marvel  at  most,  the  lofty  conceit 
with  which  the  bishop  describes  the  fundamental  principles  of  free 
government  as  "homespun  theories,"  the  modesty  with  which 
he  admits  that  he  has  no  solution  of  our  problem  to  offer,  or  the 
serene  confidence  with  which  he  foretells  the  fate  of  the  Filipino. 
His  language  confirms  our  belief  in  the  necessity  of  separating 
Church  and  State,  and  the  unwisdom  of  preachers  when  they 
undertake  to  deal  with  politics. 

The  danger  from  foreign  interlopers  can  be  guarded  against  by 
a  treaty  between  the  great  powers  which  shall  assure  the  neutrali- 
zation of  the  islands,  as  Switzerland  and  other  countries  are  neu- 
traHzed.  This  is  the  tendency  of  modern  international  states- 
manship, and  it  is  for  a  Democratic  Administration  to  make  the 
proposition  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  which  without  doubt 
the  other  powers  will  accept.  This  is  surely  better  in  every  way 
than  the  present  plan  of  holding  them  down  by  force  in  peace  and 
abandoning  them  in  war. 

What  is  meant  by  the  statement  that  they  "would  fall  a  prey 
to  the  strongest  of  the  sectional  aggregations"  is  perhaps  a  ques- 
tion. It  may  mean  only  that  the  strongest  party  will  carry  the 
elections,  and  it  can  hardly  mean  anything  else  than  a  majority 

*  Statement  in  Boston  Transcript,  April  21,  1913. 


51 

rule  described  in  the  language  of  the  pulpit.  The  defeated 
Republicans  feel  in  the  same  way  that  the  country  has  "become 
a  prey"  to  the  Democrats. 

Whatever,  however,  the  bishop  means,  he  knows  no  more  of 
the  future  than  do  his  fellow-citizens,  and,  as  his  prophecies  do  not 
frighten  the  people  most  interested,  they  need  not  frighten  us. 

When  we  read  them,  we  remember  that  for  years  the  Republi- 
cans have  described  the  Democratic  party  as  unfit  to  be  trusted 
with  power,  and  have  foretold  every  sort  of  disaster  as  sure  to 
follow  its  success  at  the  polls.  Only  the  other  day  Mr.  Taft  was 
bidding  his  party  associates  ''have  patience,"  confident  that  the 
Democrats  would  soon  demonstrate  their  folly  and  so  far  injure 
the  country  as  to  insure  their  expulsion  from  power.  An  old 
Massachusetts  member  of  Congress  left  home  last  autumn, 
expressing  his  deep  sense  of  the  approaching  calamities  which 
the  Democrats  were  sure  to  inflict  on  us  all.  There  is  no  state- 
ment of  belief  in  Philippine  incapacity,  no  matter  how  positive, 
that  cannot  be  paralleled  with  an  equally  positive  statement  of 
belief  in  Democratic  incapacity,  both  taken  from  Republican 
speeches,  and  often  the  speeches  of  the  same  men.  Least  of  all 
people  in  the  world  should  Democrats  attach  any  importance  to 
such  statements,  or  deny  independence  to  the  Philippines  because 
of  gloomy  prophecies  from  men  who  would,  if  they  could,  for  the 
same  reasons  deny  the  Democrats  themselves  any  hope  of  con- 
trolling the  government  of  their  own  country. 

The  theory  that  the  Filipinos  will  give  up  all  that  is  good  and 
take  to  mutual  slaughter  is  intrinsically  improbable.  They  have 
learned  that  good  water  is  healthy,  that  good  roads  are  useful, 
and  they  have  no  more  desire  to  die  of  disease  or  to  be  killed  in 
battle  than  we  have.  The  instinct  of  self-preservation  is  as  strong 
in  them  as  in  ourselves.  Our  schools  have  been  pronounced  a 
great  success.  Why?  Because  the  Filipinos  have  sent  their 
children  to  be  taught.  Why  did  they  do  this?  No  law  compelled 
it.  The  children  went  and  studied  because  they  wanted  to  learn. 
We  did  not  implant  that  desire  in  their  breasts,  and  it  will  not 
perish  when  we  withdraw.  All  over  the  world  men  are  govern- 
ing themselves,  not  always  as  we  would  have  them,  but  as  they 
prefer.  Our  own  eyes  are  not  free  from  beams.  We  have  only 
to  read  the  morning  paper  to  see  things  proposed  and  too  often 


52 

done  by  our  own  governors,  legislators,  and  statemen,  municipal, 
state,  and  national,  that  we  deplore.  The  remedy  is  not  to  invite 
some  other  nation  in  to  govern  us,  but  to  correct  the  abuses 
ourselves. 

To  whatever  is  said  as  to  the  probability  of  mistakes,  quarrels, 
corruption,  or  even  bloodshed  among  the  Filipinos  if  independent, 
we  may  reply  in  the  strong  words  of  President  Eliot: 

"Political  freedom  means  freedom  to  be  feeble,  foolish  and 
sinful  in  public  affairs  as  well  as  freedom  to  be  strong,  wise  and 
good." 

Let  the  nation  now  free,  whose  way  to  freedom  has  not  been 
made  through  dissension,  folly,  bloodshed,  and  civil  war,  cast  the 
first  stone  at  Filipino  quarrels. 

Let  me  quote  the  words  of  Judge  Norris,  of  Washington,  for  a 
number  of  years  a  judge  of  the  United  States  Court  in  the  Philip- 
pines, who  in  a  speech  at  Springfield  in  Massachusetts  on  March 
9  last,  after  expressing  his  opinion  that  the  Filipinos  were  not 
prepared  for  republican  government  in  1898,  continued  as  follows: 

"I  feel  equally  justifiable  in  the  assertion  that  they  possess  the 
inherent  capacity  for  free  government  and  will  be  capable  of  ex- 
ercising it  at  the  present  or  at  some  future  day.  I  feel  justified 
in  making  this  assertion  because  their  American  associates  in 
the  insular  government  bear  abundant  testimony  to  their  ability. 
With  almost  unanimous  voice  they  enthusiastically  commend 
the  ability  manifested  by  the  Filipinos  in  official  positions  in  the 
performance  of  their  public  duties.  All  the  governors-general, 
with  perhaps  one  exception,  all  the  members  of  the  Filipino  Com- 
mission, with  perhaps  one  exception,  have  been  loud  in  their  praises 
of  their  native  associates.  The  Filipinos  have,  from  the  beginning 
been  admitted  to  a  liberal  participation  in  the  government.  They 
have  been  tried  and  not  found  wanting.  Not  only  have  they  been 
heartily  commended  by  their  American  associates,  but  they  have 
received  the  more  substantial  recognition  of  not  only  being  re- 
tained in  office,  but  their  number  has  been  constantly  augmented 
until  to-day  the  insular  government  is  largely  in  their  hands. 

''  The  Filipinos  are  natural  republicans.  They  possess  the  demo- 
cratic instinct.  Whenever  or  wherever  the  opportunity  has  been 
presented  since  the  Aguinaldo  insurrection,  they  have  availed 
themselves  of  it  to  attempt  the  establishment  of  a  repubhc  or  a 
non-monarchical  government.  When  we  first  became  acquainted 
with  them,  they  were  fighting  Spain  for  national  independence  with 


53 

the  intention,  if  successful,  of  establishing  a  representative  gov- 
ernment. For  this  purpose  they  dared  the  power  of  Spain,  and, 
when  disappointed  at  the  non-recognition  of  the  Aguinaldo  gov- 
ernment by  the  United  States,  rose  in  rebellion  against  and  defied 
the  nation  that  conquered  Spain.  The  Filipinos  have  fought  for 
national  independence.  The  cause  has  had  its  heroes  and  mar- 
tyrs, like  other  patriotic  causes.  The  earnest  desire  of  the  Fihpino 
for  national  independence  is  not  that  he  may  establish  a  monarchi- 
cal form  of  government,  but  a  republic.  His  strenuous  attempts 
to  achieve  his  independence  and  create  a  republic  are  presump- 
tive evidence  that  he  possesses,  if  not  a  genius  for  self-government, 
an  innate  capacity  therefor  which  when  properly  trained  will  en- 
able him  to  administer  his  own  government  with  credit  to  himself 
and  to  his  American  instructors  and  sponsors."  .  .  . 

''Now  when  China,  Turkey,  Persia,  and  other  Asiatic  powers  are 
striving  to  emerge  into  a  higher  and  better  life;  when  the  Orient 
is  looking  for  a  sign  of  hope  from  the  Occident  and  especially  from 
the  United  States,  is  it  not  well  for  the  American  people  to  con- 
sider when  the  appointed  day  shall  arrive  to  cheer  the  Oriental 
world  with  the  object  lesson  of  an  Asiatic  republic  administered 
by  an  Asiatic  people  by  launching  the  Republica  Filipina  among 
the  nations  of  the  civiHzed  world?" 

Judge  Elliott,  late  a  member  of  the  Philippine  Commission 
appointed  by  Mr.  Taft,  adds  his  testimony: 

"I  never  had  any  sympathy  with  the  party  which  opposed 
the  retention  of  the  Philippines.  But  the  Filipinos  have  been 
promised  independence  and  have  been  led  to  believe  that  Ameri- 
can occupation  was  temporary  and  only  for  the  purpose  of  train- 
ing them  for  self-government.  They  are  competent  to-day  to 
conduct  a  fairly  good  government,  such  a  one  as  they  desire  to 
live  under.  They  can  maintain  law  and  order  and  can  protect 
the  lives  and  property  of  foreigners,  and  that  is  about  all  that  we 
can  expect  or  rightly  demand.  I  am  therefore  in  favor  of  keeping 
the  faith  with  these  people  and  passing  a  law  somewhat  similar 
to  the  Jones  Bill." 

And,  as  to  probabilities,  let  me  conclude  with  the  words  of  Mr. 
Taft  himself  in  his  message  vetoing  the  New  Mexico  and  Arizona 
Statehood  bill: 

"In  the  long  run  each  class  of  individuals  is  apt  to  secure 
better  provision  for  themselves  through  their  own  voice  in  govern- 
ment than  through  the  altruism  of  others,  however  intelligent 
and  philanthropic." 


54 


WHAT  SHOULD  BE  DONE? 

The  Jones  bill  fixes  a  time  when,  if  all  goes  well,  the  United 
States  will  withdraw  from  the  islands.  If  all  does  not  go  well, 
further  legislation  may  be  had.  If  the  bill  is  so  drawn  as  to 
make  further  legislation  necessary  before  this  withdrawal  takes 
place,  the  battle  will  have  to  be  fought  over  again.  Let  us  cut 
the  knot  now  as  far  as  possible.  Let  no  one  invest  money  or 
change  his  position  on  the  theory  that  independence  is  doubtful. 
Let  every  one  have  full  notice  that  the  decision  has  been  made, 
and  let  the  burden  to  show  cause  be  on  those  who  wish  postpone- 
ment for  any  reason.  It  is  time  that  this  question  was  settled 
in  accordance  with  the  oft-repeated  promise  of  the  Democratic 
party  by  the  passage  of  the  Jones  bill. 

To  insure  the  success  of  the  Democratic  policy,  the  government  of 
the  islands  should  at  once  be  intrusted  to  men  who  believe  in 
it.  Officers  who  like  the  present  Governor-General  are  bitterly  op- 
posed to  independence  can  do  much  to  obstruct,  but  are  not  likely 
to  forward  the  policy.  They  will  see  what  happens  through  the 
spectacles  of  their  prepossessions.  Those  things  that  make  for 
independence  will  not  seem  to  them  important  and  will  not  be 
mentioned.  Whatever  helps  their  cause  will  be  emphasized. 
They  have  made  themselves  the  leaders  in  the  movement  against 
independence.  They  are  engaged  in  an  active  propaganda  against 
the  Jones  bill,  or  any  like  measure.  They  are  not  judges  but 
parties,  and,  without  impugning  their  honesty,  their  presentation 
of  the  facts  is  not  to  be  trusted.     Is  proof  desired? 

Let  me  first  give  a  newspaper  statement  of  the  Commission's 
report  for  the  year  1911: 

"Unprecedented  prosperity  is  being  enjoyed  by  the  Philippine 
islands,  principally  as  a  result  of  free  trade  between  them  and  the 
United  States,  and  the  cry  of  'hard  times'  there  no  longer  can 
be  raised,  say  the  members  of  the  Philippine  commission  in  their 
report  for  1911.  The  United  States  has  shared  in  this  prosperity 
by  increasing  its  exports  to  the  archipelago  to  $49,800,000,  or  more 
than  $12,500,000  during  the  year.  Free  trade  has  resulted  in 
increased  revenues  to  the  Filipinos  in  sugar  and  tobacco  and  an 
improvement  in  the  market  for  copra. 

"The  opening  of  new  railway  fines  in  various  parts  of  the  islands 


55 

has  resulted  in  stimulating  industry  and  fostering  production, 
the  territory  through  which  they  pass  having  awakened  to  the 
development  of  agricultural  industries.  A  steady  and  healthy 
growth  of  the  postal  savings  bank;  Filipino  depositors  having 
increased  171  per  cent,  over  the  number  of  the  previous  year. 
Health  conditions  of  the  entire  islands  never  have  been  better  than 
during  the  past  year." 

But  now  let  us  read  the  statement  of  El  Ideal,  a  Manila  news- 
paper, about  the  year  1911 : 

"Great  fires,  hurricanes,  floods,  shipwrecks,  epidemics  among 
work  animals,  and  other  calamities  have  sown  desolation,  weep- 
ing and  ruin  in  fields  and  cities.  The  history  of  the  year  is  like 
a  Sibylline  chapter  of  Madame  de  Thebus.'' 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  this  report  among  exports  from  the 
United  States  were  for  the  first  time  included  government  sup- 
plies and  free  railroad  supplies,  so  that  the  increase  pointed  out 
with  such  pride  was  not  a  real  increase. 

In  like  manner  a  great  increase  of  imports  has  been  claimed 
the  present  year.  The  fact  that  this  was  in  part  due  to  the 
importation  of  "miUions  of  dollars'  worth"  of  rice  from  China, 
owing  to  the  failure  of  the  crop  in  the  islands,  was  not  given  equal 
prominence. 

A  much  more  glaring  case  of  both  suppressio  veri  and  suggestio 
falsi  is  the  statement  that  slavery  exists  in  the  Philippine  Islands, 
given  out  by  Dean  C.  Worcester,  one  of  the  Philippine  Commis- 
sioners, in  a  letter  published  in  the  National  Humane  Review, 
and  his  assertion  that  this  is  because  the  Filipino  Assembly 
refuses  to  pass  laws  which  will  end  it. 

This  charge  is  in  large  part  founded  on  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  from  the  syllabus  of  which  he 
quotes. 

Fortunately  for  the  truth,  Judge  Tracey,  the  judge  who  wrote 
the  opinion  in  this  case,  saw  the  statement,  and  in  a  letter  pub- 
lished on  May  3  last  contradicts  the  charge.     I  quote  his  words: 

"It  happens  that  to  me,  as  one  of  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court  for  the  Philippine  Islands  at  the  time,  was  assigned  the 
writing  of  the  opinion  of  the  court  in  the  case,  which  is  reported 
at  Page  64  of  the  Eighth  Volume  of  the  Philippine  Reports,  now 


56 

before  me.  Without  desiring  a  controversy  with  Mr.  Worcester 
or  Gen.  Mclntyre,  also  mentioned  in  your  Washington  dispatch, 
I  feel  it  incumbent  on  me  to  promptly  call  attention  to  the  sub- 
stance of  this  decision.  The  record  before  the  court  shows  not 
that  slavery  existed  in  any  form  throughout  the  Philippine  Islands, 
but  only  a  custom  of  child  servitude  or  apprenticeship  in  certain 
mountain  regions.     The  opinion  says: 

*''It  is  proved  in  the  case  that  it  is  an  Igorot  custom  to  dispose 
of  children  to  pay  the  debts  of  their  fathers,  the  transaction  in  the 
native  language  being  termed  a  sale,  and  the  defendant  appears 
to  have  engaged  in  the  business  of  buying  in  Nueva  Vizcaya 
children  to  sell  in  the  lowlands  of  Isabela.  .  .  . 

'''The  name  applied  to  it  by  the  custom  of  the  Igorots  is  not 
enough  to  establish  that  in  truth  and  in  effect  it  was  a  sale,  or  any- 
thing more  than  a  contract  for  services.  .  .  . 

'"The  employment  or  custody  of  a  minor  with  the  consent  or 
sufferance  of  the  parents  or  guardian,  although  against  the  child's 
own  will,  cannot  be  considered  involuntary  servitude.' 

"It  is  likened  to  an  indenturing  of  children,  in  accordance  with 
custom,  unprotected  by  statutory  safeguards.  After  calling  at- 
tention both  to  the  American  constitutional  declarations  against 
servitude  and  the  humane  provisions  of  the  Spanish  codes  prohib- 
iting the  abuse  of  minors,  as  well  as  the  declaration  of  the  Spanish 
law  of  the  thirteenth  century  that  'slavery  is  a  thing  that  all  men 
naturally  abhor,'  the  court  suggests  that  any  remedy  is  for  the 
consideration  of  the  Legislature  farther  than  action  by  the  crim- 
inal courts. 

"The  further  inference  is  to  be  drawn  from  Mr.  Worcester's 
letter  that  anti-slavery  laws  were  thereafter  passed  appHcable 
to  the  mountain  provinces  and  the  Morro  Province,  and  the 
offence  which  he  finds  is  that  the  legislature  refuses  to  apply  a 
similar  law  to  the  civihzed  parts  of  the  islands.  The  reason  for 
the  refusal  is  plain.  The  Assembly  does  not  consider  that  slavery 
exists  in  the  civihzed  parts  of  the  islands.  It  is  stated  in  the 
letter  that  'there  are  Negrito  slaves  held  to-day  in  the  City  of 
Manila.'  If  this  is  so,  their  liberation  can  be  enforced  any  day 
through  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  I  am  too  well  aware  of  Mr. 
Worcester's  skill  as  a  seasoned  controversialist  to  believe  that 
he  has  ventured  upon  a  specific  assertion  without  holding  some 
proof  of  it  in  reserve.  I  can  only  say  that  having  been  some  years 
a  resident  of  Manila  in  official  position,  such  a  condition  of  things 
is  unknown  to  me,  as  it  was  unknown  to  my  colleagues,  some  of 
whom  have  resided  in  the  Philippine  Islands  all  their  lives.  The 
condition  must  be  exceptional  and  abnormal,  as  it  is  illegal,  exist- 
ing in  the  islands,  as  phrased  by  General  Mclntyre:  'Just  as 
crime  exists  everywhere.' 

"It  may  also  be  observed  that  for  years  before  the  organization 


57 

of  the  Philippine  Assembly  the  legislation  of  the  Philippine  Islands 
was  in  the  hands  of  a  commission,  dominated  by  Americans,  hav- 
ing in  its  power  the  passage  of  an  anti-slavery  law  on  any  day  at 
any  hour.  The  reproach,  if  it  be  genuine,  lies  with  far  greater 
force  against  the  American  Commission  than  the  Philippine 
Assembly,  in  view  of  the  existence  of  this  species  of  servitude  in 
the  mountain  provinces  which  are  immediately  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

"It  has  passed  into  an  adage  that  'you  cannot  indict  a  whole 
people.'  All  history  proves  that  by  innuendo  you  may  calumniate 
a  whole  people.  I  may  be  permitted  to  say  that,  while  not  one 
of  those  who  think  Philippine  independence  a  timely  or  tenable 
thing  to-day,  I  deplore  the  creation  of  a  public  opinion  in  this 
country  based  on  misconception  of  a  subject  that  truly  needs  all 
the  light  that  can  be  shed  on  it  by  men  holding  official  places." 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  clear  that  a  man  capable  of  making  so 
false  a  statement  as  this  of  Dean  C.  Worcester  is  unfit  longer  to 
be  trusted  with  office.  How  many  Hke  statements  have  passed 
unchallenged,  how  many  more  will  follow,  can  only  be  con- 
jectured. 

The  present  officials  must  go.  It  is  not  safe  to  leave  this  great 
cause  at  the  mercy  of  their  prejudices  or  to  leave  them  in  charge 
of  a  people  whom  they  look  down  upon  as  incapable  of  self-gov- 
ernment. In  this  as  in  everything  else  the  opponents  urge  delay 
in  the  hope  that  thereby  they  may  compass  our  defeat. 

The  American  people  in  their  hearts  know  that  they  have  no 
right  to  hold  the  Philippines.  Their  consciences  have  always 
been  uneasy,  and  they  have  therefore  been  willing  to  catch  at 
every  excuse  or  justification  for  the  abandonment  of  their  prin- 
ciples. They  will  hail  with  delight  and  a  profound  sense  of  relief 
the  passage  of  any  measure  which  restores  their  self-respect  by 
setting  the  islanders  free.  A  volume  would  not  contain  the  ex- 
pressions of  this  feeling  that  might  be  quoted.  Their  most  re- 
spected leaders,  Edmunds,  Hoar,  Harrison,  Thomas  B.  Reed, 
McCall,  and  many  another,  have  joined  with  every  great  Demo- 
crat in  condemning  the  retention  of  the  islands,  and  the  longer 
we  postpone  their  liberation  the  greater  the  cost  to  everybody. 

Our  true  course  is  to  give  the  Filipinos  their  independence. 
Self-government  is  the  right  of  every  nation  because  no  other 
surely  regards  the  interests  of  the  governed.  Men  are  essentially 
selfish,  and  power  is  always  used  to  benefit  him  who  wields  it. 


58 

The  king  aims  to  preserve  and  strengthen  his  dynasty.  The 
oHgarchy  cUngs  to  its  privileges  at  the  expense  of  the  people.  The 
^'boss"  governs  in  his  own  interest.  It  is  only  when  the  power  is 
in  the  hands  of  the  people  that  the  rights  and  interests  of  the 
people  are  secure,  and  this  is  the  truth  which  the  founders  of  this 
nation  declared. 

I  think  it  is  Professor  Jenks  who,  in  a  report,  said  that  the 
Filipinos  were  unfit  to  govern  themselves  because  ''they  are 
readily  bribed."  How  should  we  Anglo-Saxons  stand  this  test? 
Shall  we  disfranchise  St.  Louis,  many  of  whose  elected  gov- 
ernors were  lately  in  prison  or  on  the  way  to  it  for  bribery? 
Shall  we  deal  likewise  with  Minneapolis,  whose  mayor  and  chief 
of  police  administered  a  whole  system  of  corruption?  Shall  every 
State  ever  represented  in  the  Senate  by  a  man  who  bought  his 
seat  be  driven  from  the  family  of  States?  Is  bribery  unknown  in 
Illinois,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  York?  What  was  the 
story  of  Adams  County,  and  how  did  the  contribution  of  Mr. 
Harriman  affect  the  vote  of  New  York  in  1904?  What  municipal 
legislature,  what  State  legislature,  indeed,  is  to-day  above  sus- 
picion, if  great  corporations  are  seeking  legislation?  Let  New 
York,  Philadelphia,  Chicago,  Cincinnati,  Boston,  tell  us  whether 
bribery  is  unknown  to  them,  and,  when  these  questions  are  an- 
swered, we  may  decide  how  great  is  the  mote  in  our  brother's  eye. 

But  it  is  said  they  would  kill  each  other,  and  that  anarchy 
would  ensue  if  we  left  the  islands.  When  our  troops  reached 
the  islands,  there  was  no  anarchy  and  the  Filipinos  were  govern- 
ing themselves.  The  only  anarchy  that  has  been  known  there 
is  the  anarchy  which  we  introduced.  It  is  pure  assumption  that 
the  Filipinos  would  have  engaged  in  internecine  war.  The 
Japanese,  also  Malays,  and  far  less  civilized  than  the  Filipinos 
when  we  first  knew  them,  have  grown  in  fifty  years  into  the 
greatest  Eastern  power.  We  did  not  feel  bound  to  annex  them, 
lest  they  should  kill  each  other,  nor  to  stop  such  wars  as  they 
have  known  since.  We  have  aided  them  by  teaching  them  here 
and  in  Japan,  and  we  have  let  them  develop  on  their  own  lines. 
Why  should  not  their  fellow  Malays  be  as  successful? 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  Asiatics  are  more  prone  to  civil 
war  than  Europeans,  or  whether  in  proportion  to  their  numbers 
more  men  have  been  killed  in  any  Asiatic  country  than  fell  in  the 


59  '■   )\<A'>^\j:\ 

wars  of  the  Roses,  in  the  Revolution,  in  the  subjugation  of  Ireland, 
and  in  the  wars  with  Scotland,  while  the  British  nation  was  in 
making.  When  we  reflect  that  the  Crimean  War,  the  wars  be- 
tween France  and  Austria,  Prussia  and  Austria,  Germany  and 
France,  Russia  and  Turkey,  and  our  own  Civil  War,  to  say  nothing 
of  many  minor  wars,  have  occurred  within  fifty  years,  can  we 
justly  claim  that  we  are  more  peaceful  than  the  Asiatics,  or  deny 
to  them  for  this  reason  the  independence  which  we  claim  for 
ourselves?  Sebastopol,  Gettysburg,  Solferino,  Sadowa,  Sedan, 
Plevna, — what  are  our  associations  with  these  names?  Asiatic 
nations  have  endured  as  long  as  man's  memory  extends,  unde- 
stroyed  by  civil  war.  Why  should  we  assume  that  the  Filipinos 
would  develop  a  passion  for  slaughtering  each  other  which  would 
exceed  the  measure  allowed  to  civilized  nations? 

"Those  who  deny  freedom  to  others  deserve  it  not  for  them- 
selves, and  under  a  just  God  cannot  long  retain  it." 

Are  these  words  of  Lincoln  true?  They  have  the  support  of  much 
human  experience.  A  republic  finds  its  only  secure  foundation 
in  the  belief  of  the  people  that  men  have  equal  rights.  Once 
shatter  that  belief,  once  teach  them  that  the  stronger  or  the 
wiser  or  the  better  men  have  the  right  to  rule  others  against  their 
will,  and  the  stronger  are  easily  persuaded  that  they  are  also  the 
wiser  and  the  better.  Let  them  once  see  the  easy  methods  of 
despotism  applied  to  one  part  of  the  people  under  their  flag,  and 
they  ask  themselves  why  they  should  not  apply  the  same  methods 
to  others  whom  they  dislike  or  distrust. 

There  comes  a  time  in  the  history  of  most  governments  when 
internal  differences  make  men  feel  insecure.  Let  me  illustrate 
my  meaning  by  an  extract  from  a  letter  written  by  Guizot  to 
Henry  Reeve  after  Napoleon  III.  had  overthrown  the  French 
RepubHc.     He  wrote: 

"The  great  bulk  of  the  people,  those  to  whom  their  private 
interest  is  the  sole  consideration,  are  satisfied.  The  expecta- 
tion of  the  crisis  of  1852  weighed  upon  these  interests  like  a  night- 
mare. The  president  delivered  them  from  it:  he  is  fighting 
against  socialism  and  demagogism.  By  his  triumph,  manufac- 
turers, merchants,  honest  artisans  and  peasants,  may  look  for 
some  security  in  their  work  and  business  for  some  time  to  come. 
They  ask  nothing  more  of  him." 


r^S^*^  60 

Is  there  nothing  in  this  Hne  of  thought  which  seems  famihar? 

When  Guizot  asked  Lowell  how  long  our  republic  would  last, 
he  repUed,  "As  long  as  the  ideas  of  the  men  who  founded  it  con- 
tinue dominant."  They  are  the  foundation  of  our  government, 
and  whatever  weakens  them  endangers  it.  We  have  learned  how 
the  republics  of  the  ancient  world  successively  fell,  and  we  have 
seen  the  overthrow  of  a  republic  in  France.  To  meet  our  prob- 
lems here,  to  restrain  the  power  of  capital  and  the  excesses  of  labor, 
we  need  a  deeply  rooted  faith  in  our  own  institutions,  a  passionate 
love  of  justice.  We  cannot  destroy  the  ideals  of  the  nation:  we 
cannot  insist  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  wrong:  we 
cannot  govern  millions  of  men  outside  the  Constitution, — and 
hope  to  preserve  in  full  strength  that  faith  in  the  equal  rights  of 
men  which  is  the  soul  of  this  nation.  Every  man  who  defends 
these  things  has  begun  to  lose  his  belief;  and,  while  years  may 
elapse  without  a  change  in  the  external  form  of  government,  no 
one  can  tell  when  some  crisis  will  find  our  people  as  glad  to  wel- 
come a  strong  man  as  the  French  were  to  receive  a  new  Napoleon. 
Let  us  cling  fast  to  our  faith,  and  regard  him  who  would  weaken 
it  as  an  enemy  to  his  country. 

The  time  will  come,  if  this  republic  is  to  endure,  when  an  over- 
whelming public  sentiment  will  make  itself  felt,  and  we  shall  do 
what  every  true  American  in  his  heart  would  like  to  have  his 
country  do, — give  the  FiHpinos  their  freedom,  and  thus  regain 
that  proud  position  among  the  nations  of  the  world  which  we  have 
lost, — the  moral  leadership  of  mankind, — becoming  again,  in  the 
words  of  Aguinaldo,  ''the  great  nation.  North  America,  Cradle 
of  Liberty,"  beneath  whose  flag,  wherever  it  floats  in  this  wide 
world,  there  is  no  room  for  a  subject,  but  a  sure  refuge  for  every 
man  who  desires  that  freedom  which  is  the  birthright  of  every 
human  being. 

Has  not  that  time  come  now?  The  Democratic  party  has 
given  its  promise,  and  the  people  have  placed  it  in  power.  Can 
it  now  turn  back?  If  it  does,  upon  its  head  will  rest  all  the  dis- 
astrous consequences  which  have  ever  followed  the  attempt  of 
one  people  to  hold  another  in  subjection. 


i 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


^Pff  1 8  mo 


^tumm  JUL  n '96 


20,000  (4/94) 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


i 


CD^b7^fcD^^b 


